Wieloletni u¿ytek "komórek" zwiêksza czterokrotnie ryzyko rozwoju raka ucha.
exWa¿ne! podpisujcie petycjê do WHO w celu usuniêcia brudnego naukowca,
doktora Repacholi z jego bardzo wp³ywowego kierowniczego stanowiska przy WHO !
exdalsze polskie teksty
Dänische Interphone-Studie (DE)
exProf. K. Hecht, "Zur Verharmlosung der gesundheitsrelevanten Wirkung von EMF
auf die funktionellen und körperlichen Prozesse des Menschen" wichtig! wa¿ne ! (polecam Rz±dowi Polskiemu t³umaczenie)
Erhöhtes Hirntumor-Risiko bei Langzeitnutzung von Mobiltelefonen, Interphone Studie aus Deutschland
Interphone, exGespräch mit Dr. Joachim Schüz
Sendezeit: 31.01.2006 10:36, .mp3, 768 KB
Drei Interphone-Studien beweisen langfristige Tumorgefahr für Handynutzer !
Der Stuß von den deutschen Medien zu Information von Frau Prof. Dr. Blettner
Briefwechsel zu Zwischenergebnissen der INTERPHONE-Studie
Interphone in der A6-0089/2009 - résolution 02/04/2009 des EU-Parlaments
Interphone-Studie: Mehr Tumore durch Handys?
Interphone-Studie: Mehr Tumore durch Handys?
Achtung, wieder Media-Manipulation!
anscheinend fehlen allen den Lesern im "scienceblog" von Focus und dem Autor Herrn Scheloske, die richtigen Quellen zum Thema Interphone-Studie.
Besonders, wenn Marc Scheloske angibt selbst an einem EU-Projekt gearbeitet zu haben, aber die Stellungnahmen der EU zum Thema Interphone nicht erwähnt. Ist das nur seine Unwissenheit oder soll ich ihm gleich die Manipulation vorwerfen? Auf jeden Fall ziemlich billige Kommentare in diesem "wissenschaftlichen" Blog..
Die EU kritisiert in ihrer Resolution die Zustände im Bezug auf Interphone-Studie sehr deutlich:
Traditionell, leidet dieses EU-Projekt, wie vorher Reflex-Studie unter der massiven Medien-Manipulation der Mobilfunkindustrie
siehe auch [JUNK SCIENCE]
Gruss aus Hamburg
Interphone in der A6-0089/2009 - résolution 02/04/2009 des EU-Parlaments
Ergebnisse: + 559 Stimmen; - 22 Stimmen , 0 8 Stimmen
siehe Ergebnisse und BERICHT vom 23. Februar 2009 PE 416.575v02-00 A6-0089/2009
über die Gesundheitsproblematik in Zusammenhang mit elektromagnetischen Feldern (2008/2211(INI))
Ausschuss für Umweltfragen, Volksgesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit
Berichterstatterin: Frédérique Ries
siehe folgende Punkte der Resolution:
G. in der Erwägung, dass eines der wissenschaftlichen Projekte, die sowohl Interesse als auch Polemik hervorrufen, die epidemiologische Studie INTERPHONE ist, die von der EU ? in erster Linie unter dem 5. FuE-Rahmenprogramm (8) - mit 3,8 Mio. Euro finanziert wird und deren Schlussfolgerungen seit 2006 erwartet werden,
H. in der Erwägung, dass doch immerhin bestimmte Erkenntnisse unbestritten sind, insbesondere darüber, dass die Reaktionen auf eine Belastung durch Mikrowellen bei jedem Einzelnen unterschiedlich sind, dass breit angelegte Expositionstests durchgeführt werden müssen, vor allem um nicht-thermische Auswirkungen im Zusammenhang mit Funkfrequenzfeldern zu bewerten, und dass Kinder im Fall der Exposition gegenüber EMF besonders empfindlich sind(9),
14. bedauert, dass die Veröffentlichung der Schlussfolgerungen der internationalen epidemiologischen Studie INTERPOHNE seit 2006 systematisch verzögert wird, deren Ziel es ist zu untersuchen, ob eine Beziehung zwischen der Benutzung von Mobiltelefonen und bestimmten Krebsarten, darunter insbesondere Tumore des Gehirns, des Hörnervs und der Ohrspeicheldrüse, besteht;
15. weist in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hin, dass die Koordinatorin der INTERPHONE-Studie, Frau Elisabeth Cardis, zur Vorsicht aufgerufen hat und auf der Grundlage der derzeitigen Kenntnisse empfiehlt, dass Kinder das Handy umsichtig benutzen und das Festnetztelefon bevorzugen sollten;
16. ist in jedem Fall der Auffassung, dass es Aufgabe der Kommission - die einen erheblichen Beitrag zur Finanzierung dieser weltweiten Studie geleistet hat - ist, die Verantwortlichen des Projekts zu fragen, warum noch keine endgültigen Ergebnisse veröffentlicht wurden, und im Fall einer Antwort das Parlament und die Mitgliedstaaten unverzüglich zu unterrichten;
Die INTERPHONE-Studie: ein Lehrbuchfall
Der Berichterstatterin ist bekannt, dass Kontroversen über dieses Thema zum normalen Geschehen in der Wissenschaft gehören. Dazu brauchen wir uns nur an die Polemik zu erinnern, mit der über Jahre hinweg die unterschiedlichen Meinungen zum Klimawandel und seinen Ursachen vertreten wurden!
Dennoch fällt es schwer zu akzeptieren, dass Studien - auf Eis gelegt werden -, weil sich die Experten nicht auf ein Ergebnis einigen können, und das umso mehr, als europäische Steuermittel im Spiel sind.
Die INTERPHONE-Studie ist in diesem Zusammenhang ein wahrer Lehrbuchfall. 1998 initiiert und ab 2000 begonnen, war sie vor allem als das umfassendste Projekt zu diesem Thema angekündigt worden, da sie weltweit in nicht weniger als 12 Ländern und im Interesse einer möglichst genauen Erfassung des Risikos der Erkrankung an bestimmten Krebsarten mit einer beispielhaften Protokollierung durchgeführt wurde - die Ergebnisse allerdings lassen seit 2006 auf sich warten. Dies wirft Zweifel auf, ob sich je eine klare Antwort finden lassen wird.
Die Berichterstatterin ist sich des enormen Drucks bewusst, dem die Wissenschaftler, denen sie helfen möchte, in diesem immer härteren Wettbewerb ausgesetzt sind, bei dem Forschungsergebnisse nur etwas zählen, wenn sie zur Innovation beitragen und in einer der größten wissenschaftlichen Zeitschriften erscheinen. Ihrer Meinung nach sollte die Arbeitsweise der wissenschaftlichen Ausschüsse der Kommission reformiert werden.
Hierfür liegen zwei einfache Ideen vor: Zum einen sollten in den Ausschüssen alle beteiligten Akteure vertreten sein, auch Nichtregierungsorganisationen und Verbraucherverbände. Zum anderen wird aus Gründen der Transparenz und der wirksamen Kontrolle vorgeschlagen, der EGE zusätzlich den Auftrag zur Evaluierung der wissenschaftlichen Integrität zu übertragen. Diese Art der Kontrolle, die bereits in nationalen Forschungseinrichtungen eingesetzt wird, wäre für die Kommission eine wertvolle Hilfe bei der Vermeidung von Gefahrensituationen, Interessenkonflikten oder Betrugshandlungen im Wissenschaftsbereich.
(8) - Programm "Lebensqualität" unter der Vertragsnummer QLK4-1999-01563.
(9) - STOA-Studie vom März 2001 über die "physiologischen und umweltrelevanten Auswirkungen nicht ionisierender elektromagnetischer Strahlung", PE 297.574.
The cellular phone causes cancer
INTERPHONE Results update - 8 October 2008
INTERPHONEresultsupdate.pdf 451.74 kB
"LONG-TERM mobile-phone use increases risk of benign tumours!" "Clean bill of health for the mobile!" "Mobile phone-cancer link not proven!" Those who have followed the saga of whether or not mobile phones are damaging people?s brains are used to contradictory headlines. A decade of coverage has left readers and viewers more confused than enlightened, with news reports alternating between alar ing claims and soothing reassurances. Yet even by the standards of modern news, it is unusual to see such contradictory headlines about the same piece of research. Which is why a study, called Interphone, provides a cautionary tale.
Interphone began in 2000, ended in 2006, cost $30m and involved around 50 scientists working in 13 countries on 14,000 people. It has, however, still to come to a settled conclusion. A draft of its supposed findings was circulated in June, and Elisabeth Cardis of the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Barcelona, who led it, thought until recently that a final paper would be submitted this month. Now, though, it looks as if that will not even happen this year.
The contradictory headlines are the result of national research teams releasing single-country reports, despite the fact that these inevitably involve smaller samples. The results from nine of the 13 single-country studies have been made available in this way, and the consequence is a farrago of misinformation. Many of the national reports suggest, for example, that ever having been a regular mobile-phone user offers statistically significant protection against some brain tumours. This finding is so counter-intuitive that it has led most of the people involved to acknowledge serious flaws in the study's design.
|The international Interphone study confirms :
"THE USE OF MOBILE PHONE IS CANCEROGENIC"
The official publication on the 8th of October 2008 - mostly in catimini- of the first intermediate results of the International Interphone Study from the International Research Centre on cancer dependent on WHO confirms the increased tumors and cancer cases due to the use of mobile phone. The International Epidemiologic Research Study was gathering 13 countries (Germany, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel, Italy, Japan, Norway, New-Zeeland, United Kingdom and Sweden) who were using the same protocol in order to look for a possible relation between tumours and hyper frequency micro wave?s radiations. These tumours are mainly acoustic neurinoma, meningioma, glioma, parotid gland tumours, etc? .
28 Sept. 2008... Are you confused about cell-phone tumor risks? Need a roadmap to the epidemiological studies? Want a handle on their strengths and weaknesses? Then read Michael Kundi's new review, "The Controversy About a Possible Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use and Cancer," in Environmental Health Perspectives. (EHP is an open access journal and all its papers are available for free.) Kundi, an epidemiologist and the head of the Institute of Environmental Health at the University Medical of Vienna, is not totally convinced that there is such a link, but he is persuaded that it's looking that way. So far, Kundi finds, the epidemiological evidence points to an association of "moderate strength," similar to the one for passive smoking and lung cancer, and that there are as yet "no valid counterarguments and no strong evidence" to shake his confidence in a causal relationship.
26 Sept. 2008... This week's Economist features the harshest criticism of the Interphone project to date. Under the headline "Mobile Madness," the article charges that the "massive" study "has ended in chaos" - even before the final paper has been submitted for publication. The magazine goes on to say that, because nine of the 13 participating countries have reported their findings individually, the public has been assaulted with a "farrago of misinformation." Nic Fleming, who wrote the unsigned piece, cites an anonymous source as saying that the relations among the Interphone researchers are "strained" Indeed, except for a couple of quotes from Elisabeth Cardis, the head of Interphone, most of the story is presented without attribution. Formerly a reporter for the Telegraph, Fleming pins his hopes of finding out whether there is cell phone-tumor risk on future prospective studies, however long they might take.
Japanese Interphone Results & Finnish Cell Phone Experiment
on iddd.de at 28.4.08
Interphone Summary pict -fast
Interphone Summary, .pdf, 411,5 KB
15 Feb 2008
Dear Colleagues: Last week, the Interphone results from Japan were published and the press welcomed them as a sign that cell phones are safe. Much of that may have been due to a press release from Cancer Research UK, a charitable organization. It stated that "Studies have shown no evidence that mobile phone use is harmful." Anyone who has been following the literature knows that this is nonsense. Why is a group like Cancer Research covering up the possible health risks?
In fact, the new Japanese study tells us very little about what many of us are concerned about: the long-term risks of using a mobile phone.
Earlier this week, a Finnish team reported that a one-hour exposure to cell phone radiation caused measurable changes in the skin of human volunteers. As Dariusz Leszczynski told us, "All this means that the human body recognizes this low-level radiation and reacts to it."
Read both stories on our Web site:
Best, Louis Slesin
British Journal of Cancer (2008) 98, 652-659.
doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604214 bjcancer.com Published online 5 February 2008
Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: a case-control study
T Takebayashi1, N Varsier2,3, Y Kikuchi1, K Wake3, M Taki2, S Watanabe3, S Akiba4 and N Yamaguchi5
1Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan
2Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan
3EMC Group, Applied Electromagnetic Engineering, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Tokyo, Japan
4Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Kagoshima
5Department of Public Health, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo 162-8666, Japan
Correspondence to: Dr N Yamaguchi, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received 17 September 2007; revised 19 December 2007; accepted 4 January 2008; published online 5 February 2008
In a case-control study in Japan of brain tumours in relation to mobile phone use, we used a novel approach for estimating the specific absorption rate (SAR) inside the tumour, taking account of spatial relationships between tumour localisation and intracranial radiofrequency distribution. Personal interviews were carried out with 88 patients with glioma, 132 with meningioma, and 102 with pituitary adenoma (322 cases in total), and with 683 individually matched controls. All maximal SAR values were below 0.1 W kg-1, far lower than the level at which thermal effects may occur, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for regular mobile phone users being 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-2.37) for glioma and 0.70 (0.42-1.16) for meningioma. When the maximal SAR value inside the tumour tissue was accounted for in the exposure indices, the overall OR was again not increased and there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to SAR-derived exposure indices. A non-significant increase in OR among
Keywords: glioma; meningioma; mobile phone; case-control study; epidemiology
Dr Joachim Schüz's reply
January 31, 2008
Dear Henrik Eiriksson,
We can understand the disappointment of many people who are waiting for the Interphone results. However, I can ensure you that everyone of the Interphone members is working very hard to get the best possible publication out at the earliest point in time.
There are two major reasons why results come out later than expected.
First, already the start of Interphone was delayed in some countries, e.g., because the countries outside Europe had difficulties in being funded (they did not benefit from the EU funding) and because it took time to build up the networks with the clinicians to notify the new patients.
Second, for the main results paper, we want to achieve the highest quality paper.
This paper makes use of all the ancillary studies of Interphone, thus, even the Interphone components who have already been published are re-visited and re-analysed making use of this additional information. The ancillary studies include the reviewing of the diagnostic scans of patients (to locate the tumour), studies using special handsets that record the output power of a mobile phone during operation (to evaluate whether amount of use reflects amount of radiowave exposure), studies comparing self-reported information with traffic records (to evaluate how precise recall of phone use is) and studies on non-responders of the study (to evaluate the representativity of the sample).
A problem is that whenever we were asked about the time frame, our most optimistic estimate was cited, so probably we should have said more clearly already two years ago that, due to the upredictable amount of work of the ancillary studies, the final publication may take its time. However, now I think we made good progress during the last half year.
Dr Joachim Schüz
Head, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology
Institute of Cancer Epidemiology
Phone direct +45 3525 7655
Fax +45 3525 7731
Mobile +45 30381500
From: Henrik Eiriksson [henrik.eiriksson w gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 8:36 AM
To: Joachim Schüz
Subject: Regarding INTERPHONE
Dear Mr. Schüz,
A lot of people are wondering: where are the final INTERPHONE results ?
Reliable sources speak of "a two year delay". Can you explain what is keeping the report from publication?
Cell Phones and Tumors: Set Interphone Free, INTERPHONE BEFORE BARCELONA
For those who didn't read the full story on the Interphone, note that Elizabeth Cardis is leaving IARC soon (March), for Barcelona (epidemiology job), yet the Interphone paper is not sent yet for publication since 2005, although they have the results since then.
We demand - INTERPHONE BEFORE BARCELONA.
After all, all interphone members signed conflict of interests declarations, so what's the problem?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Slesin, Microwave News" <info in microwavenews.com>
To: "Iris" <atzmonh in bezeqint.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:08 PM
Subject: Cell Phones and Tumors: Set Interphone Free
It's time to end the deadlock. It's time to release the results of the Interphone project, the largest and most expensive cell phone epidemiological study ever attempted.
Microwave News has learned that a completed draft of the results was completed TWO YEARS AGO. Yet, the paper has not yet been published and the participants refuse to discuss what they found.
Many observers believe that the Interphone study points to a long-term risk of developing tumors. But we will not know for sure until the results are made public.
Any further delay would be close to scandalous.
Read the complete story on our Web site:
The association between cellular phone use and develop- ment of parotid gland tumors (PGTs).
The full Report, .pdf, 95,7 KB
see also conclusions from Aztmon
Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors - A Nationwide Case - Control Study Siegal Sadetzki 1,2 , Angela Chetrit 1, Avital Jarus-Hakak 1, Elisabeth Cardis 3, Yonit Deutch 1, Shay Duvdevani 4, Ahuva Zultan 1, Ilya Novikov 5, Laurence Freedman 5 and Michael Wolf 2,4
1 Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Unit, Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center,Tel Hashomer, Israel.
2 Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv,Israel.
3 Radiation Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
4 Department of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
5 Biostatistics Unit,Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
The objective of this nationwide study was to assess the association between cellular phone use and develop- ment 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 individually matched controls.
For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p = 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
Mobile phones 'cancer link': Mouth tumours 50% more likely after heavy us
The experts: Don't panic, it's only cancer
7 Dec 2007
From: Iris Atzmon
The study is now presented with no celullar funding (suddenly omitted this detail and included only the other sources) and a line of experts are saying what they think:
Professor Eyal Penig, director of the department of radiotherpathy in the cancer center in Belinson hospital:
"prefers not to get excited of the results: during the years many studies were done on the link between electromagnetic radiation and cancer but no causal link has been proven as was proven for ionizing radiation and brain tumors. Today according to the knowledge we have, there is no direct link between cellular and the increased incidence of cancer. The impression is that this is a coincidence, especially with salivary gland tumors which are at very low incidence in Israel. I will not stop using my cellular and in any case there is a need to check the results. Of course one cannot make a serious change in lifestyle according to only one study".
Doctor Micha Bar Hana, director of cancer registry at the health ministry:
"the incidence of salivary gland cancer in israel is very low, we are talking about maximum dozen cases a year, most tumors are benign, I don't think there's a reason to be worried, in studies done until today that linked between cancer and tumors, the only link was found to acoustic neuroma which is only benign".
Dr. Eviatar Efraim, head of department of nose ear and throat in Asaf Harofe hospital would cease using the cellular but not for health reasons:
"until today there was not proven a link between cancerous tumors and cell phone use. Of course we will have to check the results of the current study. I would stop using the cellular but for other reasons, its use became disturbing and the relation to the cell phone is as something we can't live without"
Parliament member and M.D Arie Eldad:
"like people hurry to by optimistic and every week find a new drug for cancer, one must not be pessimistic and think that a carcinogenic cause was found. The medical papers should be read very carefully, professional reading and not popolistic, taking into consideration the journal where the paper was published, and the peer review. Results of one study don't cause a total change in lifestyle, but it will drag other studies. Only accumulation of this knowledge will bring a change, if any. Meanwhile I will not stop using the cellular."
Parliament member Ofir Pines, who led the regulations of radiation:
"The cellular companies need to apologize in front of the public after the denial they are involved in for more than a decade, about the health danger from the radiation of the cell phone. The committee of Env will make an urgent discussion to protect public health."
Prof Eliezer Robinson, the chairman of the israeli cancer society is not surprised of the results:
"there were hints in the past that the cellular can be carcinogenic but there was not found a definite evidence for this. We published 2 years ago recommendations for precaution. There are still not enough cases for significance, there is not need to panic but also not to downplay it, we will have to check the data carefully."
INTERPHONE- No brain tumors but salivary glands
Fri, 7 Dec 2007
see original file, pdf, 95,7 KB
From: Iris Atzmon
Main points from the exclusive article in Yedioth Ahronot:
** after 5 years the risk to develop salivary gland tumors at the same side was 34% and went up to 58% for 5,479 calls during life compared to no cell phone users.
** the risk is higher for users in rural areas than urban.
** 460 patients above 18 years old with salivary gland tumors from 22 hospitals in Israel from January 2001 to Dec 2003.
** there was no risk for regular users
** 55% of the 284 subjects with tumors who were reguar users, used the phone at the same side of tumors, 36% opposite side, 9% two sides. ** risk for heavy user to develop the tumor at the same ear (I don't know why it is written on the ear suddenly, they didn't write anything about ear tumors but it appears in the article for several times like that)
** the rural vs. urban areas is going to be used heavily now to recommend living near antennas, so it seems from this article. The funding came from the IUCC and Israeli Cancer Society, the IUCC receives among other sources, money from the cellular companies but the contracts gave the researchers "total scientific independence in conclusions".
** The salivery gland tumor is given a frame in the article as high chances to cure (not a serious damage, they are trying to say).
** The researchers say this is not a strong enough evidence to determine risk from cell phones. It needs to be checked in other studies for longer periods of time. They recommend to use phones according to the guidlines in each country.
** published yesterday in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
The recommendations in the newpaper are:
Use wired phone
Live where there are many antennas
Professor Moti Ravid (phyisician):
** "Too early to give up on the phones"
** National Cancer Institute published factsheet that there is no link between any kind of cancer and cell phone.
** European study showed acoustic neuroma x2 at the same side, but it was doubtful because no total increase in tumors and statistics on the border.
** The doctor says two facts interfere before accepting these findings as real:
A. there are no total more tumors in the study population than expected, and the age devision was not different than whet we know from the pre-cellular period. In young people who speak for many hours the tumors are benign and around 55 years old most of tumors were malignant, like it used to be a generation ago.
** Salivary gland tumors are 2-4% from head-neck tumors, the annual incidence rate is 1:50,000 and it increases slowly with other tumors. It is important to mention that during the last years there is no exceptional increase in quantity of these tumors.
Less antennas - more radiation - danger in Herzelia
The minister of Env. met with mayor of Herzelia Yael German to explain her that she risks the lives of people because she doesn't agree to many antennas. They say that in Herzelia the cell phones need to work stronger 4.4 fold than in other cities and the antennas work 6.3 than in other places because she doesn't understand that the more antennas the less radiation.
The municipality replied that it sees very seriously the attempt to manipulate the data and that the Env. ministry protects the interest of the cellular companies and not the public interest and the municipality will continue to look after the residents health.
The journalist Gapi Amir wrote comments- that until now all studies were speculative and didn't sound reliable but we know the parents of this study and that "this is a start of a revolution".
That's all for now, there will be stories on TV today and tomorrow the 2part of the investigation from last week, this time on Powerlines, and there is another documentary that is being prepared now on cellular antennas which is published heavily because of the criticism of a famous jounalist who agreed to take that project although the cellular companies fund it.
It is now turned out that this journalist was a consultant of one of the companies for one year, supporting the 3G. He was asked cynically whether this show will claim for "no clear danger"
- the mere fact that in 2 leading newpapers (Globes and Haaretz) the show is criticised this way is a revolution- the newspapers who take the no clear danger style suddenly don't like this line anymore ?!...
This is a change in direction. The crew claims for full independence and traveled to Europe to interview the leading scientists, and also were at the London conference, so the subject is lately in the headlines all the time. Indeed some kind of a revolution.
The Interphone study on cell phones and brain tumors is not yet finished, but IARC has started a second major epidemiological study.
Call it Interphone 2.0.
This new project addresses brain tumors and occupational exposures to EMFs and chemicals and this time the U.S. is participating.
Read the complete story at:
Briefwechsel zu Zwischenergebnissen der INTERPHONE-Studie
Im Journal des Nationalen Krebsinstituts (Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JNCI) Ausgabe 99, Nummer 8 vom 18. April 2007 wurde ein offener Briefwechsel zwischen der schwedischen Interphone Guppe unter Leitung von Maria Feychting und der dänischen bzw. deutschen Gruppe, geleitet von Joachim Schüz bzw. Christoffer Johansen, veröffentlicht. Gegenstand sind Meinungsverschiedenheiten über Art und Ausmaß eines möglichen Krebsrisikos für Langzeitnutzer von Mobiltelefonen.
Professor Anders Ahlbom - Swedish Tobacco Company
on iddd.de at 29.04.2007
Mon, 12 Feb 2007
from Mona Nilsson:
A secret from the past revealed:
Professor Ander Ahlbom, one of the leaders of the INTERPHONE and an ICNIRP member, declared he had been in the Swedish Tobacco Company medical advising board until 1996
Karolinska Institute: mobiles increase tumour risk | Professor Adlkofer of the Verband der Cigarettenindustrie (VdC), the leader of the project REFLEX funded by the European Union | VdC - die Tabak-Lobbyisten, Brief an Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer
A new INTERPHONE study , SH......this is a secret study with dirty tricks
Mon, 22 Jan 2007
The regular users definition is a dirty trick
(From prof' Hardell)
SH......this is a secret study.
no press release. Let's keep quiet about it, so none will know.
Have you heard about the new study of the Interphone from 5 countries? it found an increased risk for brain tumors at the same side of the brain where the the mobile phone was used more than 10 years (on the basis of 77 cases and 117 controls). Have you read in the news that prof Hardell says that these results actually confirm his findings?
Have you read in the news that when the authors write in the abstract, "We found no evidence of increased risk of glioma related to regular mobile phone use", by "regular" they mean on average once a week during at least 6 months. The regular users definition is a dirty trick, they can include people who use the phone rarely and bias/ dilute the risk findings. If you haven't heard all this, you are not alone.
There was simply no press release. But you probably couldn't get away of all the press items on the Danish study that denied a link yet did not reveal it was industry funded that was white-washed through the Danish association"against" cancer.
Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries
Int J Cancer. 2007 Jan 17; [Epub ahead of print]
The full document on iddd.de, 23.01.2007, .doc, 657,2 KB
Anna Lahkola 1 * , Anssi Auvinen 1 2, Jani Raitanen 1 2, Minouk J. Schoemaker 3, Helle C. Christensen 4, Maria Feychting 5, Christoffer Johansen 4, Lars Klåboe 6, Stefan Lönn 5, Anthony J. Swerdlow 3, Tore Tynes 6 7, Tiina Salminen 1 2
1STUK, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Helsinki, Finland
2Tampere School of Public Health, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
3Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton
4Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark
5Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
6Institute of Population-Based Cancer Research, The Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway
7Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, ?sterÆs, Norway
email: Anna Lahkola (email@example.com)
*Correspondence to Anna Lahkola, STUK, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, P.O. Box 14, FIN-00881, Helsinki, Finland
Academy of Finland; Grant Number: 80921
Swedish Research Council
Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources program of European Union
International Union against Cancer (UICC); Grant Number: RCA/01/08
Mobile Manufacturers' forum and the GSM Association
Emil Aaltonen Foundation
Doctoral Programs for Public Health
Mobile Telecommunications, Health and Research (MTHR)
mobile phones o brain tumors o case-control studies
Public concern has been expressed about the possible adverse health effects of mobile telephones, mainly related to intracranial tumors. We conducted a population-based case-control study to investigate the relationship between mobile phone use and risk of glioma among 1,522 glioma patients and 3,301 controls.
[JUNK SCIENCE with dirty tricks]
We found no evidence of increased risk of glioma related to regular mobile phone use (odds ratio, OR = 0.78, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68, 0.91). No significant association was found across categories with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use. When the linear trend was examined, the OR for cumulative hours of mobile phone use was 1.006 (1.002, 1.010) per 100 hr, but no such relationship was found for the years of use or the number of calls. We found no increased risks when analogue and digital phones were analyzed separately.
For more than 10 years of mobile phone use reported on the side of the head where the tumor was located, an increased OR of borderline statistical significance (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01, 1.92, p trend 0.04) was found, whereas similar use on the opposite side of the head resulted in an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.71, 1.37).
Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn.
INTERPHONE does not rule out dangers
(From Miriam Westerman) INTERPHONE does not rule out dangers
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006
First world cellphone study does not rule out dangers | Jerusalem Post Nov. 1, 2006 23:35 | Updated Nov. 2, 2006 1:56 First world cellphone study does not rule out dangers
By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
First world cellphone study does not rule out dangers
By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
The results of the largest-ever international study on the alleged health effects of cellphones will be released within a few weeks, but partial results issued by some of the participating countries - including Israel - have not ruled out the possibility that long exposure to their non-ionizing radiation may cause brain and head tumors.
Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, the principal Israeli researcher for the "Interphone" study and head of clinical epidemiology and director of the cancer and radiation epidemiology unit at Sheba Medical Center's Gertner Institute, said results of the study were very interesting but that none of the participants could talk yet.
She made her remarks Wednesday at the Conference on Environmental Pollution and Your Health, organized by Hadassah Israel and Hadassah College Jerusalem, held at Hadassah University Medical Center in Ein Kerem.
Sadetzki said alleged harm to health caused by cellphones and their giant antennas was difficult to pin down because it was hard to control all factors. Widespread use of mobile phones began worldwide only about a decade ago, she said, adding that environmental damage often showed up decades after exposure. A study documenting the carcinogenic effects in Japanese survivors of the atomic bomb blast in Hiroshima in 1945 was published only in 1995, she said.
Sadetzki said one-sixth of the world's population used cellphones. She said she was shocked to see that the length of cellphone conversations by Israelis was considerably longer than in most other countries, adding: "And third-generation cellphones [which use more power] have not yet been tested."
Sadetzki said cellphone use had been proven to increase the risk of road accidents by drivers who use them, whether using hand-free devices or while holding them.
Regarding possible cancer risks, especially to the head and brain, she said British studies did not prove a connection, while results of Scandinavian studies were mixed. For example, the Swedish study found four times the risk of head cancers on the side of the head that people held their cellphones, using them for more than 10 years, compared to non-users.
Another Nordic study found no smoking gun. "But that doesn't mean we're safe," Sadetzki said. "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence [of harm]."
She said even a weak association between cellphone use and cancer could affect a large part of the population or susceptible people, or it could interact with exposure to other environmental hazards.
Sadetzki said it was clear that extra caution must be taken with children since they absorb more energy into their heads because they are smaller and cancer is more common in children whose cells divide for growth.
Sadetzki's case-controlled studies examined 1,700 patients with head tumors and looked at their cellphone use, comparing that with controls.
Environment Minister Gideon Ezra described the difficulties of cleaning up the country's water, air and land. He said he had changed the name of his office from the "Ministry of Environmental Quality" to the "Ministry of Environmental Protection" to stress the need to protect dwindling untouched resources from pollution.
Ezra bemoaned the fact that of 7 million tons of building waste produced each year, only 1 million tons were buried in legal dumps because contractors were charged NIS 300 to $500 per truckload. Not charging for dumping in legal sites would save the environment from severe damage, he said.
A feature on the environmental health conference will appear in the Health Page on Sunday, November 12.
The protocol for the Interphone epidemiological study has been released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France.
IARC is coordinating researchers in 13 countries in an investigation of the possible link between the use of mobile phones and the development of brain and salivary gland tumors. Some results have been made public, but not the overall findings, which could come any time now.
The study is designed as a population-based case-control study
Protocol page, STUDY DESIGN, page 37
The participants in the validation study will generally be distinct from those taking part in the INTERPHONE case control study. The objective is to recruit at least 100-150 persons in each study centre (50 of them would use the SMPs). Ideally this would be a random sample of cell phone users. If this is not possible, then attempts should be made to gather a convenience sample that is broadly representative of the INTERPHONE study population with respect to:
- Urban and sub-urban/rural residence
(the SMP users should be evenly distributed between urban and rural)
- Socio-economic status Subjects for the validation studies should:
- be aged between 30-59 years
- possess sufficient language abilities to consent to participation in the study and to complete the questionnaire(s)
- be resident in the study locality until the end of the validation study
- be likely to use a mobile telephone at least once a week for the duration of the study period
- be the main user of the nominated telephone for the majority of the time (i.e. the subject will be the individual responsible for >50% of calls with the nominated telephone)
- use only the nominated telephone for the majority of his or her mobile telephone calls (i.e. the subject will use the nominated telephone for >50% of mobile telephone calls)
- consent in writing to the network operator providing details of phone use to the investigators Further, volunteers who agree to use the SMPs should have mobile phones provided through prepayment or contact arrangements and be able to transfer their usual-cards into a SMP. Within each country, the group of 50 users should be chosen to include people involved in a variety of different work and leisure activities, resident in both urban and suburban/rural areas and equally distributed between the available network operators. Usage whilst in motion, either in a train or car, should be covered, as well as stationary usage in an office and at home.
INTERPHONE, International Case Control Study of Tumours,of the Brain and Salivary Glands, Protocol, rev. 1, .pdf, 1,444 MB
The INTERPHONE is a political study.
1 Jul 2006
From: "Iris Atzmon"
Hello all, one remark on the Interphone: Choosing the biased definition of regular user in the INTERPHONE is not a "Random error" at all. It is made with an intention. Why don't researchers of tobacco define someone who smokes 1 cigarette a week as "a regular smoker"? because they are not ready to make a fool of themselves when writing in the conclusions that "regular smokers" didn't have an increased risk for lung cancer.
People laugh very loud when I tell them about the definition of the regular user in the INTERPHONE. They immediately get the point and the purpose of the study.
I am talking about non- scientific people.
It is misleading and not honest to use this definion and then to write at the conclusions (like in the Interphone german study for example) that there was no increased risk for regular users, while the definition itself does not represent regular users at all.
Hardell's study is several levels above the INTERPHONE study because Hardell's research is scientific, whereas the INTERPHONE is a political study. After I saw IARC'S Philip Autier saying that dioxin is not carcinogenic for humans while it is on the IARC list of known carcinogens from 1997, I have to think - something is very rotten at IARC and you'd bettter believe it.
J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2006 Jun 14; [Epub ahead of print] Related Articles, Links
The effects of recall errors and of selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk.
Vrijheid M, Deltour I, Krewski D, Sanchez M, Cardis E.
aInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France.
This paper examines the effects of systematic and random errors in recall and of selection bias in case-control studies of mobile phone use and cancer. These sensitivity analyses are based on Monte-Carlo computer simulations and were carried out within the INTERPHONE Study, an international collaborative case-control study in 13 countries.
Recall error scenarios simulated plausible values of random and systematic, non-differential and differential recall errors in amount of mobile phone use reported by study subjects. Plausible values for the recall error were obtained from validation studies. Selection bias scenarios assumed varying selection probabilities for cases and controls, mobile phone users, and non-users.
Where possible these selection probabilities were based on existing information from non-respondents in INTERPHONE. Simulations used exposure distributions based on existing INTERPHONE data and assumed varying levels of the true risk of brain cancer related to mobile phone use.
Results suggest that random recall errors of plausible levels can lead to a large underestimation in the risk of brain cancer associated with mobile phone use. Random errors were found to have larger impact than plausible systematic errors. Differential errors in recall had very little additional impact in the presence of large random errors. Selection bias resulting from underselection of unexposed controls led to J-shaped exposure-response patterns, with risk apparently decreasing at low to moderate exposure levels.
The present results, in conjunction with those of the validation studies conducted within the INTERPHONE study, will play an important role in the interpretation of existing and future case-control studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk, including the INTERPHONE study.
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology advance online publication, 14 June 2006; doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500509.
PMID: 16773122 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
Interphone- British study is heavily flawed
21 Apr 2006
Info: "Iris Atzmon" <atzmonh an bezeqint.net>
"It should be noted that one of the authors (Dr Swerdlow) is a member of ICNIRP, a German foundation on this issue that does not recognize any cancerogenesis from microwave exposure. ICNIRP seems to be a closed organisation that elects its own members and without full disclosure how it is financed. Membership might be a conflict of interest"
Re: Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: excase-control study 20 April 2006
Lennart Hardell, MD, Professor Department of Oncology,
University Hospital, SE-701 85 Orebro, Sweden,
Lennart Hardell, Kjell Hansson Mild
Send response to journal:
Re: Re: Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study
We have read this recently published paper, UK part of the so-called Interphone study, with interest.1 However, the results are difficult to interpret due to several limitations in the study design and analysis.
The participation rate was extremely low, for cases 51 % and for controls only 45 %. Furthermore "non-participating controls were replaced" thus with potential for selection bias for the controls. In fact participating controls were more affluent than both non-participating controls and participating cases. There is a clear gradient of mobile phone use as to social class. In our case-control study encompassing answers from 1 254 (88 %) cases with a benign brain tumour, 905 (90 %) cases with a malignant brain tumours and 2 162 (89 %) controls use of cellular telephones was reported by 48 % of the most affluent cases and 36 % in the least affluent group. 2,3
Use of cordless telephones was not assessed in contrast to our studies. The "unexposed" group was thus not truly unexposed to microwaves. The analysis of laterality is doubtful since the "unexposed" group contained subjects with exposure to microwaves on the opposite side of the head than analysed; analysis of ipsilateral exposure with contralateral exposure classified as "unexposed" and analysis of contralateral exposure with ipsilateral exposure classified as "unexposed".
We note that the numbers of interviewed cases are not constant. In the abstract 966 cases are reported but in Table 2 numbers of tumour grade and side of phone use are given for 972 cases, see footnotes. In Table 3 of 14 odds ratios 13 are < 1.0 and one > 1.0 indicating non-random variation and methodological problems in the study. Brain tumour cases may not be ideally interviewed face to face shortly after their operation due to serious cognitive behavioural defects such as memory loss and aphasia. In the Danish Interphone study cases with glioma scored significantly lower than controls due to problems in recalling words (aphasia) and symptoms due to paralysis. 4 These aspects are not at all discussed in the paper.1 In contrast to our studies the interviewers knew if it was a case or a control that was interviewed.
As to urban and rural living the investigators seam just to have asked about the study subjects own ideas on that without relying on official statistics. Thus these data are less informative compared with our data where we used the Swedish Population Registry for municipality for all cases and controls and Statistics Sweden for further classification into 6 categories of population density.5
Our latest publication on malignant brain tumours and use of cellular and cordless telephones is not cited although available at internet since July 14, 2005.6 Now results of the pooled analysis of our studies are published.2,3 Clearly we found an increased risk for high-grade astrocytoma using >10 years latency period. It is unfortunate that the current publication does not give results for high-grade and low-grade glioma separately.
It is interesting to note that the article cites critics of our studies published even before our results appeared in scientific literature. Two of the cited reports have never been published in a pre- review journal and are thus not possible to rebut. The third cited report was published in 2000, thus even when our first large case-control study was on going and no data had been reported. Furthermore, there seems to be a link to the mobile phone industry among some of the cited authors.7
We note that some of the participating universities and authors have received grants from the telecom industry. Also this study was heavily telecom industry funded. Besides local industry grants in UK the Interphone study according to IARC is funded from industry with 3.5 million Euros, and from the European Union, 3.85 million Euros (E Cardis, personal communication). The contract stipulated that the industry has the right to be informed about the results a maximum of seven days before the publication.8 Receiving grants from industry is by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor regarded as "the most important conflicts of interest". In a review of health studies on environmental tobacco smoke the rate ratio of a paper with at least one author with industry associations reaching an industry-favourable conclusion was 3.2, 95 % CI 1.4-7.5.9 It should be noted that one of the authors (Dr Swerdlow) is a member of ICNIRP, a German foundation on this issue that does not recognize any cancerogenesis from microwave exposure. ICNIRP seems to be a closed organisation that elects its own members and without full disclosure how it is financed. Membership might be a conflict of interest.
Finally, we do not agree with the statement in the accompanied editorial that "any risk to the individual mobile phone user of developing brain pathology is fleetingly small" and that there is "no need to apply the precautionary principle" for mobile use.10 This is a too premature statement since studies on long term health effects, especially for children, are lacking.
Lennart Hardell, MD, PhD, Professor Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Orebro and Department of Natural Sciences, Orebro University, SE-701 82 Orebro, Sweden
Kjell Hansson Mild, PhD, Professor National Institute for Working Life, SE-907 13 Ume?? and Department of Natural Sciences, Orebro University, SE-701 82 Orebro, Sweden
Correspondence: Dr Lennart Hardell, Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Orebro, Sweden phone + 46 19 602 15 46, fax + 46 19 10 17 68, e-mail: lennart.hardell to orebroll.se
1. Hepworth SJ, Schoemaker MJ, Muir KR, Swerdlow AJ, van Tongeren MJA, McKinney PA. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case- control study. BMJ 2006;332:883-6.
2. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case - control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Int J Oncol 2006;28:509-18.
3. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Pooled analysis of two case - control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of malignant brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003. Int Arch Occup Env Health 2006; DOI 10.1007/s00420-006-0088-5.
4. Christensen HC, Sch?Ê?z J, Kosteljanetz M, Poulsen HS, Boice JD, McLaughlin JK, Johansen C. Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors. A population-based, incident case-control study. Neurology 2005;64:1189- 95.
5. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas. Occup Environ Med 2005;62:390-4.
6. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Case-control study on the association between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant brain tumors diagnosed during 2000-2003. Env Res 2005; DOI: 10.1016/j.envres.2005.04.006
7. Hardell L. From phenoxyacetic acids to cellular telephones: Is there historic evidence of the precautionary principle in cancer prevention? Int J Health Services 2004;4:25-37.
8. IARC (2005) http://www.iarc.fr/ENG/Units/RCAd.html (Assessed April 19, 2006). 9. Garne D, Watson M, Chapman S, Byrne F. Environmental tobacco smoke research published in the journal Indoor and Built Environment and associations with the tobacco industry. Lancet 2005;365:804-9
10. Maier M. Brains and mobile phones. The biggest risk to health from mobile phones is using them while driving. BMJ 2006;332:864-5.
Competing interests: None declared
Setting the record straight about Johansen's mindless
8 Apr 2006
Setting the record straight about Johansen's mindless blather. Another important thing, is that the INTERPHONE researchers signed conflict of interests declarations - I attach the declaration (.doc, 31 KB) form they had to sign.
This is also for appearance only: at least several have worked/ work for the industry and/or have an apparent conflict. According to the file conditions, they should be removed or partly removed from the study, but since it's only a show, they are of course not removed.
Since the study itself is funded by the industry it's a little funny that they sign a conflict of interest declaration.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Riedlinger
To: Don Maisch
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Setting the record straight about Johansen's mindless blather
It looks more and more obvious to me that the cancer industry is protecting the wireless industry and the power generating corporations. It would appear that they either hold stock or they are getting heavy funding from these corporations. I believe the time has come for the public to know where the cancer industry is getting their funding. They have people running, jumping, swimming, etc. for funding to find a cure and when ever a possible cause is discovered, they seem to find fault with the scientific methods used.
I feel it is time we all speak out and call for a thorough investigation and accounting . Here in Canada we have CEO's from the cancer industry appearing at protest gathering against power lines and cellphone towers as expert witness for the corporations, where they should be preaching precaution ,knowing that science has proven that childhood leukemia can be caused by EMF.
Iris in Isreal discovered that corporate funding for the IARC study was being channeled through the cancer industry so it would not appear as direct corporate funding. This act is ,in my opinion, money laundering, which I understand to be an illegal offence. It has also been established That the Cancer Industry holds stock in tobacco corporations.This to me is as low as they can get, knowing full well that smoking causes cancer.
Wendy Mesley on CBC TV ,Market Place March 5/06 asked some very interesting questions about cancer and why so much enface is placed on the cure and not on the cause. I am attaching the program transcript .
Shortcut to: http://cbc.ca/consumers/
Industry news on the cell phone study
"What needs to happen more, so that the scientific community will come out and annouce that cellular phones are carcinogenic ? Are you waiting for the radiation itself to come out and confess ?"
7 Apr 2006
From: "Iris Atzmon"
(Kobi Maydan, host of a popular morning programme, 3.4.06, to Dr. Danny Wolf, pediatric physician who was interviewed about prof' Hardell's latest study).
from Don Maisch's weblog http://emfacts.com/weblog/
RCR News reports on Hardell study
Tuesday April 04th 2006, 12:00 pm
Filed under: Cell phone news
From Karl Polzer:
I found the wording of this story amazing. This is from a publication that is read and purchased largely by the wireless industry - not to environmental activists.
The writer, Jeff Silva, reports on the Hardell team's latest published study finding an increased risk in malignant brain tumors and notes that the results "end to coincide with some recent research on long-term human exposure to radiation-emitting wireless handsets."
That being said, he comments that the new scientific data is "unlikely" to provoke a warning to the public by governments. This is probably accurate - but what is amazing is that it is probably accurate. What other industry would get a pass like this?
Health Policy Analysis/Research
kpolzer to cox.net
New study ties brain tumors to cell phones
By Jeffrey Silva
Apr 3, 2006
WASHINGTON - A newly published study found an increased risk of malignant brain tumors for heavy cell phone usage, results that tend to coincide with some recent research on long-term human exposure to radiation-emitting wireless handsets.
"The main shortcoming of most of the so-far published studies on the association between cellular telephones and brain tumors is too short a latency period. Thus, both longer latency period and high cumulative number of hours for use are necessary to get a more precise estimate of the risk," said Swedish authors Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg and Kjell Hansson Mild in the journal International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health.
The new scientific data is unlikely to provoke government health authorities here and overseas to issue warnings to consumers, but is apt to give added weight to calls for continued research. In addition, the latest epidemiological findings may well find their way in wireless-related health litigation in various state and federal courts in the United States.
Why won't he just recommend phones as cancer prevention therapy?
Hardell's latest articel
...and his own study which found a protective effect from the cellular phone is very reliable indeed with new data, with 4 countries showing a protective effect (Sweden , Finland, Norway, Denemark) Why won't he just recommend phones as cancer prevention therapy?
----- Original Message -----
From: Sianette Kwee
To: Iris Atzmon ; Ulla Bak ; Roy Beavers ; Milt Bowling ; David Buecher ; Buergerwelle ; Charles Claessens ; J-M. Danze ; Leopoldine Gaigg ; Reba Goodman ; Hese-project ; Olle Johansson ; Hans Karow ; Libby Kelley ; Don Maisch ; Miguel Muntané ; Colette O'Connell ; Imelda O'Connor ; Alasdair Philips ; Robert Riedlinger ; Per Segerbäck ; Louis Slesin ; Jorg Wichmann
Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2006 12:40 AM
Subject: Hardell's latest articel
Comment from Christoffer Johansen from the Danish Cancer Organization:
The Cancer organization dismisses the Swedish results and will not issue any new recommendations. We do not think that the data are reliable and therefore we will not change our recommendations concerning use of cell phones. The Swedish study is unreliable because it consists of two studies put together without any new data.
US- Food and Drug Administration- FDA Losing Credibility With Public
FDA Losing Credibility With Public, Own Staff: Half of survey respondents in the agency said they did not think it was headed in the right direction.
Info from Iris Atzmon
JOEL B. FINKELSTEIN (Contributing Writer)
JOURNAL HOME, Volume 41, Issue 18, Page 28 (15 September 2006)
WASHINGTON - Members of the scientific community have raised a red flag over the apparent increasing influence of money and politics on what are supposed to be the independent, unbiased internal workings of the Food and Drug Administration and other federal watchdog agencies.
In a recent confidential survey of staff scientists in the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, 19% reported being pressured to push through a drug about which they had reservations and 66% said that they were less than wholly confident that the FDA adequately monitors the safety of drugs after they reach the market.
Across the agency, 50% of respondents said they did not believe that the FDA was headed in the right direction, according to the survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
In the words of one staff scientist: "The FDA is presently being stacked at every management level, including the lowest levels, based on those who will support the big companies' agenda, and the implications for safety and efficacy will be felt long into the future."
Such influences have led to a "crisis in public confidence," according to Dr. Steven Nissen, who until last year chaired the FDA's Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee.
"We have to work a lot harder now ... to keep the politicians out of the science as much as possible and to keep the commercialization of science from coloring everything we see and hear of scientific value," he said at a panel discussion about conflict of interest on government science panels sponsored by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. CSPI is a nonprofit consumer organization focused on food, nutrition, and health issues; it is perhaps best known for its efforts to disclose the nutritional content of fast-food products.
Dr. Nissen criticized the agency's top leaders for "whining incessantly" to Congress about the burden of regulation rather than asking for more authority.
"While the American people worry about the safety of drugs, the top FDA leadership tells us we need fast drug approval," he said.
The appointments of Lester Crawford, D.V.M., Ph.D., and Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach as acting FDA commissioner and Dr. Scott Gottlieb as FDA deputy commissioner for policy also have raised some troubling questions about conflict of interest with the agency, Dr. Nissen said. (Dr. Crawford eventually gained Senate confirmation to his position, but resigned shortly thereafter.)
"In his role as director of the National Cancer Institute, [acting commissioner von Eschenbach] must seek FDA approval for human testing or approval of new cancer drugs, an obvious conflict of interest. Even worse, the administration has appointed Scott Gottlieb as deputy commissioner, who came to this job with no regulatory experience, directly from Wall Street where he served as a biotech analyst and stock promoter," Dr. Nissen said.
Also speaking as part of the panel, Dr. Gottlieb refused to address those charges, but defended FDA policy that allows the agency leeway in impaneling advisory committee members who have financial ties to industry.
The advice the FDA receives from advisory committees must span the breadth of both clinical research and clinical practice, he said. "That's the kind of advice that you can only get from people who are heavily engaged in clinical trials."
Dr. Gottlieb also announced FDA plans to revamp the advisory committee guidelines, including updated rules that determine whether members need to be recused due to a potential conflict of interest. However, it is unclear how those changes will relieve the concern, both inside and outside the agency, that these panels are being manipulated.
"I've observed that [FDA] management and [drug and device manufacturing] companies have found ways to manipulate this process in favor of approval. These methods are very subtle and would not easily be recognized," recounted one respondent to the survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The anonymous respondent went on to describe these techniques.
Within the FDA, scheduling conflicts can be used to exclude a committee member who is expected to oppose a drug's approval, and managers have been known to massage the presentations to the committee to soften damaging findings. Drug companies have also learned that by hiring experts as consultants, they can deny FDA access to them, and that by hiring committee members themselves, they can force them to be excluded from voting on a company's drug.
"As advisers, we get the data that is presented to us and ... you can tell where the agency wants you to go," said Dr. Nissen. "The material you get has to be unbiased, and I'm worried that it might not be."
It is easy to overlook the more subtle value that advisory committees can provide, said Dr. Gottlieb.
"The advice we are getting is not necessarily in many cases whether or not a drug can make it to market, but the contours of the approval, what the language should look like, what indications this drug should be approved for, should it be restricted, what is an appropriate postmarket monitoring plan," he said.
US FDA to review wireless phone safety
(from Blake Levitt) FDA news
Fri, 7 Apr 2006
US FDA to review wireless phone safety
Thu Apr 6, 2006 12:46 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said on Thursday it will review wireless phone safety following a recently published study that raised concerns about a heightened risk of brain cancer.
Swedish researchers said last month the use of cellular phones over a long period of time can raise the risk of brain tumors. Their findings contradict a number of earlier studies and are "difficult to interpret," the FDA said in comments posted on its Web site.
Still, the agency said it "plans to convene a meeting in the near future to evaluate research conducted to date in this area and identify gaps in knowledge that warrant additional research."
It also will continue to monitor studies for possible health problems stemming from exposure to radio frequency energy.
The researchers at the Swedish National Institute for Working Life compared data from 2,200 cancer patients and an equal number of healthy patients.
Those who heavily used wireless phones had a 240 percent increased risk of a cancerous tumor on the side of the head where they used their phone, they reported.
Their results, published in the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, defined heavy use of wireless phones as 2,000 or more hours, or about one hour per day for 10 years.
Mobile phone beware
From: Eileen O'Connor
Friday, March 24, 2006
Please find enclosed an article (.gif, 175 KB) from 2000 about a man who spent over 4 hours on a mobile phone which was believed to make his face blow up. Many people have been requesting this news article since I mentioned it in a recent e-mail.
Dear Eileen, Maybe this story can be scanned and be passed by email? It's an extraordinary story I would like to read...Iris.
Ex-Government Military Scientist Barrie Trower specialised in microwave radiation. Barrie Trower told me about a story in which appeared in the Sunday Mirror News paper May 7th 2000, the article reported about a man who spent four hours on a mobile phone which made his face blow up so much doctors had to take his eyes out of his sockets to relieve the pressure.
Barrie has the original news article and is willing to talk to any newspaper, scientist or investigator about the hospital radiation hot spots. Please find enclosed details for Barrie.
Industry studies compared to independent studies [4, 6, 7]
|Industry studies compared to independent studies [4, 8, 6, 7]|
Der Stuß von den deutschen Medien
Beispiele wie Deutsche Medien, zwei kleinere Interphone1 und Interphone2 Teilstudien als Interphone Endergebnis darstellen um falsche Informationen zu liefern - Anm. umtsno
schauen Sie sich lieber das Video aus Australien an: AUSTRALIANEWS
Der Stuß Nr. 1 aus dem Süden: Bayern
Aus exBayern 3
"Wer neben einem Handy-Sendemast oder einer -antenne lebt, hat ein höheres Risiko, krank zu werden."Klingt nachvollziehbar und das Wissen darum gehört unterdessen fast zur Allgemeinbildung. Dabei stimmt das nicht mal. - Das sind zumindest die ersten Erkenntnisse einer Studie, die von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation WHO in Auftrag gegeben und deren Ergebnisse jetzt bei der Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Leipzig vorgestellt wurde.
Die Studie wurde in 13 Ländern nach genau definierten Kriterien durchgeführt. Allein in Deutschland nahmen 30.000 Menschen teil. Das Ergebnis: Handynutzer haben kein erhöhtes Risiko, an Krebs zu erkranken. Das sagte Prof. Maria Blettner, Direktorin des Mainzer Universitätsinstituts für Medizinische Biometrie, Epidemiologie und Informatik. Zwar würden derzeit noch in 3.000 Wohnungen Messungen der elektrischen Feldstärke durchgeführt, aber schon jetzt lasse sich ihren Angaben nach sagen, dass Handynutzer (in Deutschland immerhin rund 60 Millionen) kein höheres Krebsrisiko haben.
Axel Robert Müller spricht mit Prof. Maria Blettner über die neue WHO-Handystudie.
Vergleiche mit den tatsächlichen Veröffentlichungen Interphone1 und Interphone2 und Interphone3 aus Deutschland
Der Stuß Nr. 2 aus dem Norden: Hamburg
exIm Hamburger Abendblatt vom 12.09.2006
.."Selbst bei unsachgemäßem Gebrauch gefährden Handys nicht die Gesundheit. Auch in der Nähe von Mobilfunkbasisstationen und Antennenmasten ist kein erhöhtes Krankheitsrisiko erkennbar. Das zumindest ergab eine internationale Studie, über die die Mainzer Wissenschaftlerin Maria Blettner zum Auftakt der Jahrestagung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Medizinische Informatik, Biometrie und Epidemiologie in Leipzig berichtete.
Die von der Weltgesundheitsorganisation initiierte Studie wurde in 13 Ländern durchgeführt. In Deutschland nahmen 30 000 Menschen daran teil. "Noch messen wir in 3000 Wohnungen die Stärke der elektromagnetischen Felder durch", sagte die Forscherin. Bereits jetzt ließe sich aber sagen, dass Handynutzer kein erhöhtes Krebsrisiko haben. In Deutschland nutzen rund 60 Millionen Menschen Mobiltelefone. Die Gespräche laufen über mehr als 51 000 Basisstationen und rund 280 000 Antennen. Blettner: "Die elektromagnetischen Felder sind übrigens am Handy selbst deutlich stärker als an einer Basisstation."
Also, vergleiche mit den tatsächlichen Veröffentlichungen Interphone1 und Interphone2 und Interphone3 aus Deutschland
Gruß aus dem Norden
It is also an absurd to publish the Interphone fraud as a serious study
It is also an absurd to publish the Interphone fraud as a serious study- a study which determines risk for the population from cell phones on the basis of one call per week ? which is the definition of a "regular user" in the Interphone study ? a big study with 13 countries whose death standard cliques cooperate with Dr. Repacholi by getting the cellular industry money. The meaning is total fraud towards the health population- to call this the most comprehensive study is a blatant lie considering the fact that regular users in reality use the cell phone heavily. There are many tricks in this study for the purpose of not finding the real risk, which are not told to the public, and even positive results are reported as negative results by the researchers cliques to the media. This is fraud and playing with millions of people?s lives.
Michael Raz- private investigator
INTERPHONE: The problem of the regular users definition -how BIG is the problem?
From: "Iris Atzmon"
Thu, 9 Feb 2006
INTERPHONE: The problem of the regular users definition -how BIG is the problem?
...I don't know what about you, but I wasn't convinced at all by the below Dr. Schuz's answer -Dr Schuz is the leader of the german Interphone study.
The interphone researchers are the first to claim that a positive connection is a recall bias, but they don't treat their BASIC SYSTEMATIC BIAS with the same norms.
I pesonally think that the the definition of a regular user makes the Interphone study an international fraud: Would 13 countries bother to gather together in order to study the link between smoking and lung cancer, on the basis of "regular smokers" who smoke once a week?
Would anyone dare to colclude from such a study on the link between smoking and lung cancer? would anybody call such a smoking study "the most conclusive study done ever"..."the most comprehensive study" etc etc like the Interphone is called by the media and the researchers themselves.
What exactly are they trying to prove there?....who approved this definition? Why did the scientists agree to such a definition if they are serious people? or are they? That was what I was trying to understand from Dr. Schuz.
Dr. Schuz wrote that "As you can see in the papers, other exposure definitions than the concept of a regular user depend on years of use, amount of use and a mixture of both characteristics and include subjects that use a cellular telephone daily for many years of use.
This approach is being criticized for increasing the odds of chance findings, but to my mind it is justified, as it is a relatively new research area and we don't want to miss something"
I think that on the contrary - an approach based on years + amount of use decreases chance findings and increases the odds of real findings instead of defining a regular user a person who talks once a week and then write, like the germans wrote in their conclusions- no increased risk for a regular user.
..."especially those in which tumor location are taken into account, are based only on regular versus non-regular users, but this is due the fact that the national components have small sample sizes."
- it is not convincing.
"Such analyses will certainly be part of the international pooled analyses. This is why we (in our paper) and also others of the Interphone group have expressed the caveat that results should not be overinterpreted with regard to heavy long-term users but the international results should be awaited."
- So is the study built in a way that people shouldn't "overinterpret" the long term results?! - that reflects the quality of the study: why were the long term users samples so small: was it really that hard to find such people, or was it the control of the industry over the data collection? (selelction bias).
Dear Iris Atzmon,
Dr Joachim Schüz
Head, Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology
Institute of Cancer Epidemiology
Phone direct +45 3525 7655
Fax +45 3525 7731
Mobile +45 24312678
Interphone study question
From: Iris Atzmon
Monday, January 30, 2006 6:45 PM
Interphone study question
Dear Dr. Schüz,
I am a student of Public Health, and I write you with regard to your latest study (Interphone)-
I would like please to ask for your professional opinion not only as the leader of the study, but also as a key person in the international area of public health. Your study defines a regular user as someone who has at least one incoming or outgoing call per week for 6 months or more.
I find this definition quite problematic: would we call a person who smokes at least once a week for 6 months or more- a "regular" smoker ? I feel this basic definition is a basis for a bias of the study- bias towards finding that phones are not linked to brain tumors because it includes people who use phones occasionaly.
I have read that the British Interphone researchers attribute a recall bias to people to say they used the cell phone on the same side where they got a tumor, so in this aspect, I feel the researchers are trying to be very precise although it is not logic that all of the subjects were wrong or everybody was lying, many of them probably did use the phone at the same side of the tumor- but in the aspect of the "regular user" definition, maybe there is not the same strong attempt to be presice or to search for the "scientific truth" considering that in reality, people are attached to the phones non- stop in average at least 2 hours a day .
Don't you feel this definition is a source for bias? I tell you openly, that non- scientific people laughed at my face when they heard the definition.
I understand that the industry has a say in the study, because they fund part of it, but STILL- what about the scientists? Do they feel it is a responsible definition to the millions of cell- phone users ? why do scientists agree to such a problematic definition?
I would really like to know your serious professional opinion here, it really bothers because of the importance and the weight of the Interphone study to millions of cell-phone users
With much respect and wish you success in your future studies,
Conflict of interest in funding the Interphone Studies
Commentary, American Journal of Epidemiology
Thursday February 09th 2006
Filed under: Cell phone news
Cellular Phones, Cordless Phones, and the Risks of Glioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)
Schuz et al., American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access published January 27, 2006
This study, similar to all Interphone studies published to date, has several serious problems.
For one, its core findings report no risk for glioma or for meningioma from "regular" cellphone use ("regular" use is defined as at least one incoming or outgoing call per week for 6 months or more). Yet, it reports a 2.2-fold risk of glioma after more than 10 years of cellphone use with a 94% confidence that this risk is not due to chance. Also, it found a 1.96-fold risk of high-grade glioma for women from "regular" cellphone use with a 98% confidence. Given the specific problems of the study" all of which would underestimate the risk of a brain tumor" these findings are ominous.
Here is a list of the main problems in this study:
1. The definition of unexposed cases and controls included subjects exposed to cordless phones. Previous studies have shown that cordless phone use increases the risk of glioma  and meningioma.  Including exposed subjects in the unexposed group will cause an underestimation of risk.
2. The definition of a "regular" cellphone user is so minimal that almost all "regular" cellphone users would not be expected to be at risk, even if cellphone use is found to create a very high risk of glioma and meningioma.
As mentioned earlier, regular use as defined by all Interphone studies, is "at least one incoming or outgoing call per week for 6 months or more." As to longer periods of "regular" cellphone use, this study reported only 14% of the glioma cases and 6% of meningioma cases used a cellphone for 5 years or more; for 10 years or more, the percentages are 3% and 1%, respectively.
To understand that "regular" cellphone use as defined in this study is so minimal that risk ought not to be expected, even if there is a high risk of glioma and meningioma from cellphone use, consider a hypothetical study of smokers and the risk of lung cancer. Would a risk of lung cancer (which is a high risk for smokers) be expected to be found for smokers who had smoked once a week, for 6 months or more with only 12 subjects (3%) smoking for 10 years or more?
3. There is a strong possibility of selection bias. Some 30.5% of controls refused to participate in the study compared to only 4.8% of glioma cases and 4.9% of meningioma cases. If a higher proportion of controls who participate (compared to controls who refused participatio) used a cellphone, then any risk would be underestimated. This result (an underestimated ris) seems to be at play in this study.
Some 58% of controls who refused to participate answered a question whether or not they used a cellphone. These groups of non-participating control (one of both sexes between the ages of 40 and 59 years of age, and another of men between 30 and 39 years of age) provided confirmation that a selection bias problem indeed existed in this study. That is, these non-participating control groups used cellphones less frequently than did the participating control group.
[There were two small exceptions to this selection bias: Controls between 60 and 69 years who refused to participate, and those that did participate, reported a common amount of cellphone use and so did not contribute, one way or the other, to selection bias. This group represents roughly 15% of the total controls. The only non-participating controls that reported higher use of cellphones compared to participating controls were females 30-39 years of age. This would have caused an overestimation of risk among a very small proportion (about 8%) of all the controls.]
4. Substantial funding of this, and all Interphone studies, comes from the cellphone industry with a resultant, but undeclared, conflict-of-interest. Though the study reports that this funding "was governed by agreements that guaranteed complete scientific independence" it seems doubtful that this "guaranteed" "scientific independence" is possible. Researchers-careers are dependent on receiving research grants. Even with isolation of funding for a specific study from the researchers themselves, the conflict-of-interest in such funding is not resolved. Because the researchers know where the funding has come from, the old adage, "Don't bite the hand that feeds you," becomes the effective psychological reality (whether conscious or unconscious).
Friedman and Richter explored this concern by reviewing the conflict-of-interest problems found in studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine and The Journal of the American Medical Association during 2001. The paper found a strong association between those studies whose authors had an economic conflict of interest and, as well, reported positive findings
(P <0.001, equivalent of greater than a 99.9% confidence). 
In the case of cellphone studies, could the findings of these industry-funded studies have a correlation with findings of no harm from cellphone use? It is interesting to note that the Interphone studies, all receiving substantial cellphone industry funding, consistently put forth press releases highlighting the "no risk" findings from cellphone use. But the Hardell et al. studies (all independently funded) consistently are finding a greater and greater risk from cellphone use with each new study they publish.
1. Hardell et al., Case-control study of the association between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant brain tumors diagnosed during 2000-2003; Environ Res. 2006 Feb;100(2):232-41.
2. Hardell et al., Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumors diagnosed during 1997-2003; International Journal of Oncology 28: 508-518, 2006.
3. Friedman and Richter, Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results; J Gen Intern Med. 2004 Jan;19(1):51-6.
A Microwave Expert Warns Against Masts Safety
from Mona Nilsson
9 Feb 2006
A Microwave Expert Warns Against Masts Safety
Drei Interphone-Studien (aus Schweden, England und Deutschland) zusammengenommen beweisen langfristige Tumorgefahr für Handynutzer !
Die Bücherverbrennung weitere Folge
siehe: zuerst ist die Taktik von BfS ist zu nennen -Anm. von umtsno (DE)
Aus dem Gespräch (768 KB, mp3) mit J. Schüz* Zitate..
Is There a Ten-Year Latency for Cell Phone Tumor Development?
German Interphone Points to Long-Term Brain Tumor Risk
Is it a warning sign or a statistical fluke?
January 29, 2006
..."This result is very difficult to interpret," Joachim Schüz, the lead author of the new German study, told Microwave News in a telephone interview. "I can only say that it's still an open question whether there is a tumor risk for more than ten years of use." Schüz, formerly at the Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz in Germany, is now head of the department of statistics and epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology at the Danish Cancer Society in Copenhagen. exThe paper will appear in the March 15 issue of the American Journal of Epidemiology, but is already available on the journal's Web site.
Sweden's Lennart Hardell of Örebro University and Kjell Hansson Mild of the National Institute for Working Life in UmeÆ have previously exreported a higher brain tumor risk after long-term cell phone use.
"I have a hard time believing that [the German result] is a statistical anomaly," Mild said in a telephone interview. "We carried out a pooled analysis with a large number of cases and a clear brain tumor risk emerges after ten years." Mild noted that he sees the highest risk among those who had used phones a total of 2,000-3,000 hours. In a presentation at last summer's Bioelectromagnetics Society meeting, held in Dublin, Mild said that he did not see an increased risk for latencies of less than ten years.
The Interphone project is a major international effort to investigate possible tumor risks associated with the use of mobile phones. Thirteen countries are participating in the project, which is being coordinated by Elisabeth Cardis at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in Lyon, France. The U.S. is not among them.
A number of the other Interphone research groups, including those from Denmark, Sweden and the U.K., have already reported their results. Some observers are interpreting these findings as suggestive of a long-term brain tumor risk, but all this is still quite controversial and clouded by complicated methodological issues.
A large part of the problem is that the explosion in the use of mobile phones is a relatively recent phenomenon and the Interphone project has only a handful of cases with ten or more years of cell phone use. (The paper with the complete Interphone findings is due later this year.)
For example, last week, on January 20, a U.K. group released its Interphone results, which also showed that the highest glioma risk was among those who had used mobile phones for more than ten years. (The paper is posted on the British Medical exJournal Web site.) The increase is relatively small (20%) and not statistically significant, but it stands out because the 13 other tabulated odds ratios (ORs) are strikingly low-all are less than 1. If phones have no effect on tumor development, then all the ORs should have been clustered around 1, with as many greater than 1 as smaller than 1. For this example, an OR<1 would indicate fewer tumors (a protective effect), and an OR>1 more tumors (an adverse effect).
For brain tumors on the same side of the head (ipsilateral), the 10-year U.K. risk is 24% higher than expected, but this time the increase is statistically significant. Here too, most of the other reported ORs are less than 1. The OR for contralateral tumors (that is, on the opposite side of the head as the phone was used) is 0.75 and also significant. The British team argues that this apparent protective effect on the contralateral side is most likely an artifact attributable to recall bias. That is, patients with brain tumors would tend to misremember how they used their phones in order to assign a cause for their cancer. Or, to put it another way, the observed higher tumor risk on one side of the head is balanced out by the lower risk on the other side.
But, as we shall see in a moment, there is another possible explanation: Many of the ORs may be artificially low and, if so, the true tumor risk might be higher than presented.
There are some provocative parallels between the U.K. Interphone results and those reported last year by the exSwedish Interphone study group led by Maria Feychting at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. While Feychting also concluded she did not see an elevated brain tumor risk, she did find a 60-80%, non-significant, increased incidence of gliomas on the same side of the head as the phone was used - here again after ten years of exposure (see below).
As in the U.K. study, the vast majority of Feychting's ORs are less than one. In a exletter to the American Journal of Epidemiology last September, Sam Milham, an epidemiologist in Olympia, WA, highlighted this skewed distribution of risks. Only four of 136 calculated ORs presented in a set of the published tables are above 1, Milham wrote. After recalibrating the data to compensate for the low ORs, Milham concludes that the Swedish data "show that ipsilateral cell phone use is associated with brain tumor development." (We should point out that in its response to Milham and others, the Karolinska team notes that it saw no increase in tumors in the regions of the head where radiation exposure is the highest -the temporal and parietal lobes.)
Like Mild, Milham has long maintained that changes in tumor incidence would only follow after at least ten years of radiation exposure. "You would expect a long latency period for solid tumors," he told Microwave News.
Indeed, even the express release accompanying the publication of the German study points out that the fact that the greatest glioma risk is observed among the long-term users is the "most plausible" result. While the risk is still hypothetical, the release argues that this finding "demands attention."
What makes the ten-year latency for brain tumors compelling is that the Swedish Interphone group has observed a similar ten-year latency for acoustic neuromas. The Hardell-Mild team has reported a statistically significant increase in the incidence of acoustic neuroma but with a shorter latency - although the risk increased as the number of hours of use went up. (Schüz explained that the German Interphone analysis of the acoustic neuroma data is being carried out by a team at the German Cancer Research Center in Heidelberg and will be published separately at a later date.)
One sees a similar pattern of long latencies for the well-known cancer risks associated with tobacco and asbestos. In both cases, epidemiologists have reported no statistically significant increase in lung cancer and mesothelioma, respectively, until there had been at least ten years of exposure.
The German press release is titled "No Increased Risk of Brain Tumors from the Use of Mobile and Cordless Phones." Not surprisingly, those media outlets that picked up the news sounded the all clear and did not address the ten-year latency tumor risk.
Mobiles don't raise cancer risk ?
Mobile phone use does not lead to a greater risk of brain tumour, the largest study on the issue has said. The study of 2,782 people across the UK found no link between the risk of glioma - the most common type of brain tumour - and length of mobile use. Among cancer sufferers the tumours were more likely to be reported on the side of the head where they held the phone. But the British Medical Journal study said people over-reported phone use on the side their cancer developed.
The research, which was carried out by the British arm of an international project called Interphone, reiterates the findings of most earlier studies in saying that there is no connection between cancer and mobile phone use.
These results are reassuring for everyone with a mobile
Dr Kat Arney, Cancer Research UK
The team of researchers, involving scientists from Leeds University, the Institute of Cancer Research and the University of Nottingham, spoke to 966 people diagnosed with glioma and 1,716 without the condition in five areas of the UK.
All 2,783 were interviewed about their history of mobile phone use over the previous 10 years. They were asked to recall in detail how much they used their mobile phones, how often they used hands-free kits and what types of phones they had used.
Research author Professor Patricia McKinney, Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology at the Leeds University, said: "For regular mobile phone users, there was no increased risk of developing a glioma associated with mobile phone use." She acknowledged that there appeared to be an increased risk among brain cancer sufferers on the side of the head where they held the phone.
MOBILE PHONE FACTS
Available in the UK since 1985
Widely used since late 1990s
Now estimated to be owned by more than 40m Britons, including many children
Most studies have found no raised risk of brain tumour
But long-term effects still not known
Children still advised to use mobiles only when necessary
The team, however, did not put this down to a causal link, because almost exactly the same decreased risk was seen on the other side of the head, leaving no overall increase risk of tumours for mobile phone users. Instead, they blamed biased reporting from brain tumour sufferers who knew what side of the head their tumours were on.
Another research team member, Professor Anthony Swerdlow of the Institute of Cancer Research, said: "It would be very misleading to the public to say that because there was a positive that this (mobile phones) causes brain tumours." He explained: "If we had found a raised risk overall and it was all coming from one side, I would believe there was a real case.
"But as there is a drop on the opposing side - the overall risk is not raised. "That makes it rather unlikely that there is a raised risk." But he added that epidemiological studies could never show there was no risk of an activity, they could only suggest there was no raised risk.
The Health Protection Agency said the research was good news, but that it did not give mobile phones a clean bill of health. The board said it would not be changing its advice that children should not make unnecessary mobile phone calls.
Dr Kat Arney, science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said research such as this was vital for getting to the environmental causes of cancer. "This is the biggest and most thorough study into mobile phones and glioma so far, and it adds to the growing evidence that there is no link. "Although we still don't know about the very long-term effects of phone use, these results are reassuring for everyone with a mobile."
Wendy Fulcher, who founded ther Brain Tumour Research Campaign, said she hoped people would be finally reassured by the results of the research. She added: "In relation to other cancers, brain tumours are the poor relation when it comes to research funding. "There should be more money focused on the root causes of brain tumours."
Alasdair Philips, director of campaign group Powerwatch, says the study "doesn't really prove anything". "I think they should have waited another couple of years and recruited more people with brain tumours so they could have interviewed them, because the trouble was they went back a few years and the people had died.
"If you get a grade four glioma you can die within a year or 18 months of it being diagnosed, and these people are just gone, so they couldn't get their mobile phone history."
from exBBC NEWS: 2006/01/20
Occupational exposure to radio frequency/microwave radiation and the risk of brain tumors
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Sep 15;164(6):538-48. Epub 2006 Jul 27.
Occupational exposure to radio frequency/microwave radiation and the risk of brain tumors: Interphone Study Group, Germany.
Berg G, Spallek J, Schuz J, Schlehofer B, Bohler E, Schlaefer K, Hettinger I, Kunna-Grass K, Wahrendorf J, Blettner M; Interphone Study Group, Germany.
Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. firstname.lastname@example.org
It is still under debate whether occupational exposure to radio frequency/microwave electromagnetic fields (RF/MW-EMF) contributes to the development of brain tumors. This analysis examined the role of occupational RF/MW-EMF exposure in the risk of glioma and meningioma.
A population-based, case-control study including 381 meningioma cases, 366 glioma cases, and 1,494 controls aged 30-69 years was performed in three German regions in 2000-2003. An exposure matrix for occupational activity was constructed by using information on RF/MW-
EMF exposure collected in a computer-assisted personal interview. "High" exposure was defined as an occupational exposure that may exceed the RF/MW-EMF exposure limits for the general public recommended by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Multiple conditional logistic regressions were performed separately for glioma and meningioma.
No significant association between occupational exposure to RF/MW-EMF and brain tumors was found. For glioma, the adjusted odds ratio for highly exposed persons compared with persons not highly exposed was 1.21 (95% confidence interval: 0.69, 2.13); for meningioma, it was 1.34 (95% confidence interval: 0.64, 2.81).
However, the slight increase in risk observed with increasing duration of exposure merits further research with larger sample sizes.
exPMID: 16873421 [PubMed - in process]
see german presse
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields emitted from Base Stations of DECT Cordless Phones and the Risk of Glioma and Meningioma
July 2006, Article: pp. 116-119
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Emitted from Base Stations of DECT Cordless Phones and the Risk of Glioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)
Joachim SchüzA, B , Eva BöhlerA, Brigitte SchlehoferC, Gabriele BergD, Klaus SchlaeferD, Iris HettingerC, Katharina Kunna-GrassD, Jürgen WahrendorfC, Maria BlettnerA
A. Institute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz, D-55101 Mainz, Germany, B. Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Dk-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark, email@example.com C. Unit of Environmental Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Center, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany, D. Department of Epidemiology and International Public Health, Faculty of Public Health, University of Bielefeld, D-33501 Bielefeld, Germany
Schüz, J., Böhler, E., Schlehofer, B., Berg, G., Schlaefer, K., Hettinger, I., Kunna-Grass, K., Wahrendorf, J. and Blettner, M.
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields Emitted from Base Stations of DECT Cordless Phones and the Risk of Glioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany). Radiat. Res. 166, 116-119 (2006).
The objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that exposure to continuous low-level radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) increases the risk of glioma and meningioma. Participants in a population-based case-control study in Germany on the risk of brain tumors in relation to cellular phone use were 747 incident brain tumor cases between the ages of 30 and 69 years and 1494 matched controls.
The exposure measure of this analysis was the location of a base station of a DECT (Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications) cordless phone close to the bed, which was used as a proxy for continuous low-level exposure to RF EMFs during the night.
Estimated odds ratios were 0.82 (95% confidence interval: 0.29-2.33) for glioma and 0.83 (0.29-2.36) for meningioma. There was also no increasing risk observed with duration of exposure to DECT cordless phone base stations. Although the study was limited due to the small number of exposed subjects, it is still a first indication that residential low-level exposure to RF EMFs may not pose a higher risk of brain tumors.
Received: October 31, 2005; Accepted: March 9, 2006
see german presse
Erhöhtes Hirntumor-Risiko bei Langzeitnutzung von Mobiltelefonen
Deutscher Teil der Interphone-Studie veröffentlicht, die unter anderem an der Universität Bielefeld durchgeführt wurde
Erhöhtes Hirntumor-Risiko bei Langzeitnutzung von Mobiltelefonen
Handys sind aus unserem Alltag nicht mehr wegzudenken. Deshalb ist es wichtig, genau zu überprüfen, ob ihr Gebrauch gesundheitsschädlich ist. Einen Beitrag dazu liefert die Interphone-Studie*, die unter anderen von der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Epidemiologie und International Public Health der Universität Bielefeld durchgeführt wurde.
Insgesamt gesehen wurde in Deutschland bei Nutzern von Handys und Schnurlostelefonen kein erhöhtes Risiko beobachtet, an einem Hirntumor (Gliom oder Meningeom) zu erkranken.
Für Personen, die seit zehn Jahren Handys nutzen, wurde ein leicht erhöhtes Risiko für Gliome gefunden. Allerdings kann dieser Befund erst nach Abschluss der internationalen Auswertung bewertet werden, da dieses Ergebnis aufgrund der kleinen Fallzahl auch ein Zufallsbefund sein könnte.
Hintergrund für die Durchführung der Interphone-Studie
Mobiltelefone (Handys) und Schnurlostelefone emittieren - im Gegensatz zu "klassischen" Telefonen mit Schnur - hochfrequente elektromagnetische Felder. Zum Schutz der Bevölkerung gibt es Grenzwerte. Elektromagnetische Felder unterhalb dieser Grenzwerte verursachen nach derzeitigem Wissen keine Gesundheitsschäden. Da Handys und Schnurlostelefone direkt an den Kopf gehalten werden, kommt die Strahlenbelastung insbesondere durch die Handys den Grenzwerten aber relativ nahe.
Trotz fehlender konkreter Hinweise auf eine mögliche Gesundheitsschädigung entschloss sich die Weltgesundheitsorganisation (WHO) frühzeitig, wegen der starken Verbreitung der Mobilfunk-Technologie epidemiologische Studien durchzuführen. Insbesondere wollte die WHO untersuchen, ob die Nutzung von Handys ein höheres Risiko für Hirntumoren (Gliome, Meningeome und Akustikusneurinome) darstellt. Zu diesem Zweck wurde im Herbst 2000 eine internationale Studie in 13 Ländern begonnen, die von der "International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)" in Lyon koordiniert wird (Interphone-Studie).
In Deutschland wurde die Interphone-Studie gemeinsam von der AG Epidemiologie und International Public Health der Universität Bielefeld, vom Institut für Medizinische Biometrie, Epidemiologie und Informatik der Universität Mainz (Studienleitung) und der AG Umweltepidemiologie am Deutschen Krebsforschungszentrum in Heidelberg durchgeführt.
Das Design der deutschen Teilstudie von Interphone
Die Studienregion in Deutschland umfasst die Zentren Bielefeld, Heidelberg, Mannheim und Mainz. Zwischen Oktober 2000 und November 2003 wurden alle in diesen Regionen wohnenden und neu an einem Hirntumor erkrankten Personen im Alter zwischen 30 und 69 Jahren zur Teilnahme an der Studie eingeladen. Insgesamt nahmen 366 Patientinnen und Patienten mit einem Gliom, 381 mit einem Meningeom und 97 mit einem Akustikusneurinom teil. Dies entspricht einer Teilnahmerate von mehr als 85 Prozent. Die Kontrollgruppe waren 1535 Personen zufällig aus der Bevölkerung der Studienregion ausgewählte Personen (Teilnahmerate 63 Prozent). Mit Patienten und Kontrollpersonen wurde ein systematisches Interview durchgeführt.
Ergebnisse des deutschen Teils der Interphone-Studie
Eine regelmäßige Nutzung eines Handys (d.h. mindestens einmal pro Woche) war nicht mit einem höheren Risiko verbunden, an einem Gliom oder Meningeom zu erkranken. Es wurde kein höheres Risiko mit ansteigender Nutzungsintensität beobachtet. Auch unter intensiven Mobiltelefon-Nutzern, d.h. mindestens 30 Minuten pro Tag, zeigte sich kein höheres Hirntumorrisiko. Nur wenige Studienteilnehmer benutzten ein Mobiltelefon zehn Jahre und länger. Hierunter befinden sich vor allem Nutzer analoger C-Netz-Telefone. Für diese Langzeitnutzer wurde eine Verdopplung des Risikos beobachtet, an einem Gliom zu erkranken. Da das Ergebnis auf einer sehr kleinen Fallzahl beruht, kann dieses Ergebnis auch statistischer Zufall sein oder unbekannte Störfaktoren können eine Rolle spielen. Das Ergebnis erfordert aber Beachtung, weil in der Gruppe mit der längsten Nutzungsdauer ein Risiko auch am plausibelsten wäre.
In denjenigen Gehirnregionen (seitlich: temporal und parietal), die am stärksten durch die Strahlung der Mobiltelefone belastet werden, traten Tumore nicht häufiger auf als erwartet. Dies wiederum stützt nicht die Hypothese eines ursächlichen Zusammenhangs.
Auch für die Nutzer von Schnurlostelefonen wurde kein erhöhtes Risiko beobachtet. Zwar arbeiten Schnurlostelefone mit deutlich weniger Sendeleistung als Handys, dafür ist die Nutzungsdauer oft sehr viel länger. Bei den schnurlosen Telefonen sendet in der Regel die zugehörige Basisstation andauernd hochfrequente Funksignale zu den Handgeräten (Hörern). Die höchste Belastung durch solche Basisstation ergibt sich durch eine Aufstellung in Bettnähe, da hier von der längsten konstanten Bestrahlungsdauer ausgegangen wird. Personen, die die Basisstation ihres Schnurlostelefons in Bettnähe aufgestellt haben, hatten kein höheres Risiko, an einem Hirntumor zu erkranken.
Bewertung der Ergebnisse im internationalen Kontext
Insgesamt gesehen wurde unter Nutzern von Mobiltelefonen kein höheres Risiko beobachtet, an einem Gliom oder Meningeom zu erkranken. Dieses Ergebnis des deutschen Teils der Interphone-Studie entspricht weitgehend den bereits veröffentlichten Ergebnissen der Interphone-Studie aus Schweden und Dänemark. Entgegen dieser beiden Teilstudien zeigte sich im deutschen Teil jedoch ein tendenziell erhöhtes Gliomrisiko unter Langzeitanwendern von Mobiltelefonen (zehn Jahre oder mehr). Ein wissenschaftlich belastbares Urteil über diese Nutzergruppe wird aufgrund der kleinen Fallzahlen in diesen nationalen Teilstudien allerdings erst nach Abschluss der internationalen, zusammengefassten Auswertung der Interphone-Studie aller 13 Länder möglich sein. Bei Nutzern von Schnurlostelefonen zeigte sich keine Risikoerhöhung, weder bei der Exposition durch das Handgerät noch durch die Basisstation.
Interphone-Deutschland wurde gefördert durch die Europäische Union, durch die "International Union against Cancer (UICC)", das Deutsche Mobilfunkforschungsprogramm der Bundesregierung, das Ministerium für Umwelt und Verkehr Baden-Württemberg, das Ministerium für Umwelt Nordrhein-Westfalen und das MAIFOR Forschungsprogramm des Fachbereichs Medizin der Universität Mainz. Die UICC erhielt zum Zweck der Studienförderung Mittel vom "Mobile Manufacturers' Forum" und der "GSM Association". Über die UICC konnte die Mobilfunk-Industrie ihrer Verantwortung zur Forschungsförderung bei gleichzeitiger Unabhängigkeit der wissenschaftlichen Forschungsnehmer nachkommen.
PD Dr. Joachim Schüz (Studienleitung), Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Kopenhagen, +45 3525 7655
Prof. Dr. Maria Blettner (Mainz), 06131/173252
Dr. Brigitte Schlehofer (Heidelberg), 06221/422383
Juniorprofessorin Dr. Gabriele Berg (Bielefeld), 0521/1062554
* Joachim Schüz, Eva Böhler, Gabriele Berg, Brigitte Schlehofer, Klaus Schlaefer, Iris Hettinger, Jürgen Wahrendorf, Katharina Kunna-Grass, Maria Blettner: Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risk of glioma and meningioma (Interphone study group, Germany). American Journal of Epidemiology, 2006.
German Interphone study finds increased risk after ten years of mobile phone use
Fri, 27 Jan 2006
From: Frans van Velden, fransp do dds.nl
German Interphone study finds increased risk after ten years of mobile phone use
The Interphone study in Germany has found a double risk of glioma after more than ten years of mobile phone use. The group of long-term users was relatively small and part of them has been using the 450 MHz analogue system too.
Back to Danish study
20 Jan 2006
see here danish study
"The study was supported by the European Commission -Fifth Framework Programme, the International Union Against Cancer, the International Epidemiology Institute and the Danish Cancer Society."
The Danish study "failed to show a link" but the newspaper failed to show Christpher's link to the industry. Now that's a failure! They mentioned so many "neutral" funders to make it sound a "pure" study.
"The study is unlikely to be the last word because
it did not include many long-term mobile phone users or people who used mobile phones heavily" sure, why would they include them- they only interrupt to the study.
The Times April 12, 2005
Mobile calls "not linked to cancer"
By Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor
WORRIES about mobile phones may be eased by a study that shows no link to brain cancer.
The study, in Denmark, compared the use of mobile phones by people who developed brain tumours with their use by a control group of healthy people.
The results, published in Neurology, show that by three measures - using a phone, using it frequently or using it over several years - there is no evidence of a link with the development of tumours. They also found that brain tumours, when they did occur, showed no tendency to be on the side of the head where the phone was typically held.
Since fears about mobile phones were raised, studies have been conducted in an attempt to show that the risks were real or to lay them to rest.
Christoffer Johansen of the Danish Cancer Society, the author of the new study, said that his findings were in line with other large studies on the issue. "There have been a few studies that found an increased risk of brain tumours with cell phone use, but those studies have been criticised for problems with the study design," Dr Johansen said.
He questioned 427 people with brain tumours and 822 in the control group about their use of mobile phones. Such retrospective studies, by asking people to remember after the event how often or for how long they used a mobile phone, run a risk of "recall bias": those with tumours may be inclined to exaggerate their use.
To counter this, for a subset of people - 27 with brain tumours and 47 people without - the team got hold of records from mobile phone companies to document the amount and length of calls and compared the actual calls with what the participants reported.
This confirmed that people accurately remembered the number of calls they made but did not always remember accurately the length of those calls. This applied equally to both groups. Dr Johansen said that this finding minimised the possibility of recall bias.
The study is unlikely to be the last word because, like others, it did not include many long-term mobile phone users or people who used mobile phones heavily. " In our study, few people reported regular mobile phone use for ten years or more," Dr Johansen said. We won " to be able to make any firm conclusions until we can confirm these results with studies with more long-term and heavy cell phone users."
The study was supported by the European Commission - Fifth Framework Programme, the International Union Against Cancer, the International Epidemiology Institute and the Danish Cancer Society.
TUNING INTO A HEALTH SCARE
1996 Australian scientists claim that brain cells can be damaged by radiation from mobile phones and that cancer cells exposed to such fields grow faster
1997 Research at Royal Adelaide Hospital shows that mice exposed to microwave radiation for 18 months show a doubled risk of lymphoma. Follow-up studies fail to reproduce the effect
1999 Tests at Bristol University show that phones cause localised brain heating, but no perceptible ill-effects
2000 Committee chaired by Sir William Stewart finds no ill-effects but recommends that children should be discouraged from using the phones
2001 Swedish study finds that people who have used a mobile for two hours a day for ten years nearly double their risk of a brain tumour
2004 National Radiological Protection Boards report, also chaired by Sir Willian Stewart, concludes that risks have become more persuasive and reiterates warning to children
2005 Second Swedish study fails to show any link between brain tumours and mobile phones
2005 Danish Cancer Society fails to show any links
New Mobile Phone Use and Glioma paper
Hepworth SJ, et al, Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study
BMJ Online First, 20th January 2006
This paper and its accompanying Press Release make the following claim without appropriate justification: "Use of a mobile phone, either in the short or medium term, is not associated with an increased risk of glioma."
It is Powerwatch's view that this is a highly misleading claim, either through a deliberate and politically motivated attempt to spin the information towards a set goal, or due to incompetent assessment of the results in the report.
The study does, indeed, find that result for the gliomas studied - but the sample used excluded a large majority of the high grade (fast growing) glioma cases because: "We interviewed 51% of those patients with glioma who were eligible, mainly because rapid death prevented us from approaching all of them."
They continue: "As early death is most likely in patients with high grade tumours, it is not surprising that participation rates were higher in those with low grade tumours. A bias in these results would occur only if mobile phone use was related to severity of tumour, which was not supported by our analysis, where odds ratios for mobile phone use showed no increased risk for high or low grade tumours."
It is equally misleading here to state "which was not supported by our analysis" when they do not in fact present any analysis for mobile phone usage differences between the cases with low-grade and high-grade gliomas. Also, although they admit to not having a representative number of high-grade gliomas, they do not provide any case numbers for the two groups. Once again, this can only be due to either an ulterior motive or incompetence, as the only reasonable conclusion in this respect would be to say "due to the small number of high grade cases in our study, we cannot assess the effect of mobile phone usage on high grade gliomas".
Simplistically, in middle-age adults, about 50% of gliomas are low grade and 50% are high grade. Most high grade gliomas are fast growing and fatal within a few years. As they only included 51% of possible cases, and admit that there was a strong bias (chi2 p=0.001) towards low grade tumours, then we are left to assume that they had, in fact, very few high grade glioma cases.
In which case, this is further evidence that they have no scientific justification for commenting on either high grade gliomas or gliomas as a whole. Without research to suggest otherwise, it is perfectly plausible to suggest that mobile phone usage may have a large impact on high grade glioma cases that were in the 49% of cases omitted
It is very disappointing that these well-respected scientists can draw such badly justified conclusions from their research. Had this study limited its conclusions to the results found from the available cases, and commented that no conclusions can be drawn about the cause of approximately half of all gliomas, the study would have been fine. As it is, it presents a highly misleading overall picture, and may make it harder to get funding to look into causes of high grade gliomas, about which there is still little known.
One can only hope that the conclusions are down to an incompetent misrepresentation as opposed to a more sinister motivation.
As high grade gliomas seem to be fatal within a short time of diagnosis, it is clear that a prospective study is now needed that will record details of cases as they are diagnosed.
Director of Powerwatch
see original dok., .pdf, 104,7 KB
Interphone researchers misled the media
30 Sep 2005
From: "Iris Atzmon" firstname.lastname@example.org
There is going to be an Israeli TV investigation show in the national news today, about the misleading way in which the British Interphone results were reported to the public. The reports all over the world quoted Reuters, and said that it was safe to use the phone for 10 years with no tumors, but the media didn't report the 80% increase after 10 years.
Of course if tumors develop after 10 years it is evidence for damage that is done during the first 10 years, so something does happen during the first 10 years so that's very misleading to say that 10 years are "safe".
This time it's not the media's fault. The researchers themselves
didn't report accurately on their own findings to the media! The media also reported "no cancer risk" whereas the study was on benign tumors, it was a good PR for the companies. See here the english version of Haaretz newspaper on that.
Report on acoustic-neuroma is worthless
Sept. 02, 2005
From: "Sylvie" email@example.com
Danish Professor Albert Gjedde of Aarhus Hospital knocks the recently published results in a international study that suggest that people using mobile phones for more than 10 years are at greater risk of developing "acoustic-neuroma", a benevolent type of tumor in the ear.
In the British-Scandinavian part of the study, 678 people with acoustic-neuroma tumors and a control group of 3553 people without the tumor, were tested.
"The study shows a possibilty [for developing acoustic-neuroma] that warrants further investigation, but it does not prove any direct risk and is basically just a hypothesis or theory. The study in itself is worthless" - says Prof. Albert Gjedde.
Prof. Albert Gjedde disputes the test on the grounds that the results relied on the testees recalling their own amount of mobile-phone usage going years back in time. He suggests that this may have lead the tested people with acoustic-neuroma to subconsciously excaggerate their recollection of mobile-phone usage.
The study is a cooperation between England, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland and is a part of the "Interphone" project that aims to study possible relationsships between mobile-phone usage and brain/nerve related diseases.
Danish Government has given 30 million kroner (= 2.7 million pounds) to research into health effects of mobile telephony, but that won't go far says Albert Gjedde who would like to see more money for research.
exArticle text in Danish:
Criticism on former Interphone Study
RE: "LONG-TERM MOBILE PHONE USE AND BRAIN TUMOR RISK"
The recently published study by Lönn et al. (1) is flawed in many ways.
In a broad overview, too few cases were
included to enable the authors to find an increased risk for a reasonable latency time at the brain location where a cell phone's radiation plume exists. Furthermore, there are direct contradictions between the text of the paper and the data as reported in the tables. In essence, the data show an increased risk, whereas the text says that there is no increased risk. Among the flaws of this study are the following:
Latency time: Too few cases had 10 years of exposure. The study even reports, "No studies to date have had an exposure time long enough to properly address the potential adverse late health effects of mobile phone use," immediately after remarking, "Studies of ionizing radiation . . . have indicated that the induction period of radiation-induced solid tumors is probably at least 10 years" (1, p. 526).
Tumor location: Almost all of a cell phone's radiation plume to the brain goes to the temporal lobe. The Lo¨nn et al. study combines the temporal and parietal lobes, including tumors that are only partially within either lobe. The net effect of not reporting temporal lobe tumors alone is to diminish any potential effects for the temporal lobe alone.
Latency time and tumor location: For 10-year ipsilateral exposure since first regular use for the combined parietal and temporal lobes, the study reports eight glioma cases and one meningioma case. There is insuf- ficient statistical power to show a statistically significant increased risk, yet the authors report a small (10 percent) increased risk of glioma.
When they look at glioma and meningioma without considering tumor location, for 10 years since first regular ipsilateral use, there are more cases (14 glioma, four meningioma). More cases provide additional statistical power. With more statistical power, the study shows an 80 percent increased risk of glioma and a 40 percent increased risk of meningioma. The confidence level for the increased risk of glioma is 86 percent. (The study does not report a p value. The confidence level is based on calculating the p value from the reported 95 percent confidence intervals (a rounding error may result; requests to the authors for the p value were refused)).
Laterality: Tables 5 and 6 report laterality data. All other tables do not include laterality. Given that the radiation plume is on only that side of the head where the cell phone is used, reporting results without laterality is a dubious exercise.
Focus on grades of gliomas: It is common for a glioma originally diagnosed as grade I to progress through each grade (2). Yet the study appears to indicate that if cell phones are a risk, then the odds ratio should increase by tumor grade. The study reports, "Furthermore, the odds ratio did not increase, regardless of tumor histology" (1, p. 526). It is not clear why this histology hypothesis would be stated, and it is unlikely to have any relevance.
Examples of direct contradictions between the text and the data reported in the tables follow: The abstract reports, "No risk increase was found for ipsilateral phone use for tumors located in the temporal 599 Am J Epidemiol 2005;162:599'605 and parietal lobes" (1, p. 526). Yet the study reports (table 6) that the risk of a glioma, for a duration of regular ipsilateral use of 10 years, is elevated by 10 percent (odds ratio1/1.1, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.8, 1.5). The Discussion section begins, "We observed no increased risk of glioma or meningioma related to mobile phone use, regardless of . . . duration of use" (1, p. 529). However, the study reports (table 5) that the risk of a glioma is elevated (odds ratio 1/4 1.8, 95 percent confi- dence interval: 0.8, 3.9). Similarly, the risk of meningioma is elevated (odds ratio 1/4 1.4, 95 percent confidence interval: 0.4, 4.4). That these results are not statistically significant does not negate an elevated risk, but only the confidence in the finding.
Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries
There is public concern that use of mobile phones could increase the risk of brain tumours. If such an effect exists, acoustic neuroma would be of particular concern because of the proximity of the acoustic nerve to the handset. We conducted, to a shared protocol, six population-based case-control studies in four Nordic countries and the UK to assess the risk of acoustic neuroma in relation to mobile phone use. Data were collected by personal interview from 678 cases of acoustic neuroma and 3553 controls. The risk of acoustic neuroma in relation to regular mobile phone use in the pooled data set was not raised (odds ratio (OR)=0.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.7-1.1). There was no association of risk with duration of use, lifetime cumulative hours of use or number of calls, for phone use overall or for analogue or digital phones separately. Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as reported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1). The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out.
Keywords: neuroma, acoustic; telephone; epidemiology; aetiology
British Journal of Cancer advance online publication 30 August 2005; doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764
Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries
M J Schoemaker1, A J Swerdlow1, A Ahlbom2,13, A Auvinen3,10, K G Blaasaas4, E Cardis5, H Collatz Christensen6, M Feychting2, S J Hepworth7, C Johansen6, L Klöboe8, S Lönn2, P A McKinney7, K Muir9, J Raitanen10, T Salminen3, J Thomsen11 and T Tynes8,12
1Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Brookes Lawley Building, Sutton SM2 5NG, UK
2Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Box 210, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden
3STUK-Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, 00881 Helsinki, Finland
4Norwegian Armed Forces, Bygning 0028A, Sessvollmoen 2058, Norway
5International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Cedex 08, Lyon, France
6Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
7Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, 30 Hyde Terrace, Leeds LS2 9LN, UK
8The Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population-based Cancer Research, Montebello, 0310 Oslo, Norway
9Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK
10Tampere School of Public Health, University of Tampere, Tampere 33014, Finland
11Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, DK-2900 Hellerup, Denmark
12Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, PO Box 55, 1332 Osteras, Norway
Correspondence to: MJ Schoemaker, E-mail: Minouk@icr.ac.uk
13 From this author onwards in alphabetical order of surname
Received 14 July 2005; revised 27 July 2005; accepted 28 July 2005; published online 30 August 2005
Mobile phone cancer link rejected
31 Aug 2005
This is published also in Israeli newspaper "Haaretz" today.
Mobile phone cancer link rejected
Mobile phone use does not raise the risk of cancer, at least in the first 10 years of use, the largest investigation to date shows. Some past studies had suggested an increased risk of acoustic neuroma - a tumour of the nerve connecting the ear and the brain - but others did not.
The latest Institute of Cancer Research work includes data from five European countries and more than 4,000 people. Expert advice is still to limit mobile phone use as a precautionary measure.
Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown
Senior investigator Professor Anthony Swerdlow
There are more than one billion mobile phone users worldwide.
Longer follow-up is needed to check that health problems do not arise with many more years of use, the researchers say in the British Journal of Cancer.
An independent group for the UK government, led by Sir William Stewart, that looked into the safety of mobile phones in the late 1990s also concluded mobile phones did not appear to harm health.
However, the group said there was evidence that radiation from mobile phones could potentially cause adverse health effects, and therefore a "precautionary approach" to their use should be adopted.
The government currently advises mobile phone users to keep their call times short.
And children under the age of 16 should use mobile phones for essential calls only, because their head and nervous systems may still be developing. The latest data from the UK, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, included 678 people with acoustic neuroma and 3,553 without this form of cancer.
This revealed no relation between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the number of years for which the mobile phones had been used, the time since first use, total hours of use or total number of calls.
It is important that researchers continue to monitor phone users over the coming years. Dr Julie Sharp, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK Nor was there any link with analogue or digital phones or whether or not a hands-free kit was used.
On balance, the evidence suggests there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade of use - but the possibility of some effect after longer periods remains open, the researchers concluded.
Senior investigator Professor Anthony Swerdlow said: "Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown, reflecting the fact that this is a relatively recent technology." Dr Michael Clark from the Health Protection Agency said: "This is good news but we still need to be a bit cautious." Dr Julie Sharp, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This study provides further evidence that using mobile phones does not increase the risk of brain tumours.
"However, it is important that researchers continue to monitor phone users over the coming years as mobiles are still a relatively new invention."
The research is part of a bigger study that will be published next year.
A Swedish study identified an increased risk of acoustic neuromas among people who had used mobile phones for 10 years or more.
People have been concerned that the radiofrequency from phones might cause cancers, despite the absence of a known biological mechanism for this.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Wieloletni u¿ytek "komórek" zwiêksza czterokrotnie ryzyko rozwoju raka ucha.
Naukowcy ze szwedzkiego exInstytutu Karoliñskiego w Sztokholmie stwierdzili, ¿e u¿ywanie telefonu komórkowego przez wiêcej ni¿ dziewiêæ lat zwiêksza ryzyko rozwoju raka ucha.
Prowadzone przez nich badania wykaza³y, ¿e z tej strony g³owy, do której zwykle przyk³adany jest telefon, mo¿e rozwin±æ siê nerwiak nerwu s³uchowego - ³agodny rodzaj nowotworu uk³adu s³uchu Vestibularis-Schwannom ( tak¿e Akustikusneurinom; engl.: acoustic neuroma rose ) z prawdopodobieñstwem 1,9 w stosunku do osób, które u¿ywa³y komórki krócej ni¿ 10 lat lub w ogóle ich nie u¿ywa³y. Ryzyko zachorowania na raka wzrasta prawie czterokrotnie (3,9x), je¶li uwzglêdnia siê tylko to ucho, przy którym zwykle trzyma siê komórkê.
W czasie gdy prowadzono badania, od ponad dziesiêciu lat wykorzystywane by³y jedynie telefony analogowe. Z tego te¿ powodu nie mo¿emy stwierdziæ, czy podobny efekt wystêpuje przy d³ugotrwa³ym wykorzystywaniu telefonów cyfrowych (GSM) - podano w o¶wiadczeniu.
Instytut Karoliñski to jedna z najwiêkszych w Europie uczelni medycznych oraz uznane na ¶wiecie a szczególnie w Angli i USA biomedyczne centrum badawcze.
Te badania przeprowadzono w ramach projektu Interphone agencji IARC miêdzynarodowego centrum onkologicznego ( International Agency for Research on Cancer ) ¶wiatowej organizacji zdrowia WHO w Lyon, Francja. Od roku 2000 s± przeprowadzane badania kontrolne ryzyka telefonii komórkowej wed³ug tego samego wzoru w 13 krajach. Osoby z rakiem mózgu (Gliome, Meningiome und Akustikusneurinome) i zdrowe osoby kontrolne s± pytane na temat u¿ywania komórek.
Press officer, Institute of Environmental Medicine, IMM:
Office: +46 (0) 8 524 875 05
Mobile phone: + 46 (0) 70-658 75 05
Source: Institute of Environmental Medicine (IMM), KI
Helena Mayer Information and Public Relations Office
Informacja: Bartek Szostakowski
dalszy kommentarz do Interphone (DE)
Karolinska Institute: mobiles increase tumour risk
Using a mobile phone for 10 or more years increases the risk of developing ear tumours by almost four times, according to research from Sweden.
The study conducted by the Karolinska Institute, one of Europe's largest medical universities and a clinical and biomedical research centre which awards the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine each year, concluded that the risk of acoustic neuroma rose b 3.9 times on the side of the head the phone is used.
Using a mobile phone for 10 years or more increases the risk of ear tumours by four times, research suggests.
Kommentar von exizgmf zu Interphone Sweden:
Hintergrund: Im Frühjahr 2004 hatte die erste Veröffentlichung aus der Interphone-Studie, sie bezieht sich auf die Teilstudie in Dänemark, aufgrund festgestellter Akustikusneurinome für einigen Wirbel gesorgt. Bereits 1999 dokumentierte ein Forscherteam um den amerikanischen Epidemiologen Dr. George Carlo, dass bei lange andauernder Handynutzung (mehr als 6 Jahre) ein erhöhtes Risiko für Akustikusneurinome besteht." siehe auch: Interesting details about the Interphone study
Dänische Interphone-Studie: izgmf-Story über Hörnervtumor und Verharmlosung
Was ist nur mit der deutschsprachigen Medienlandschaft los, will denn keiner mehr mit eigenen Recherchen gegen die Vorbeter in den Nachrichtenagenturen antreten? Das ist geschehen: Der Ende Januar 2004 publizierte dänische Teil der Interphone-Studie (Untersuchung des Akustikusneurinoms) führte zu einem Schwall an Berichten, die allein die entwarnenden Aspekte der Studie deutlich machen. So als hätte die Studie nicht auch entdeckt, dass Hörnervtumoren bei Handytelefonierern signifikant größer sind als bei anderen. Dieser kritische Aspekt aber wird in den Berichten verschwiegen, im Deutschen Ärzteblatt sogar auf den Kopf gestellt. Da machen wir nicht mit.
Lesen Sie in unserer Nachrecherche, was die Interphone-Studie wirklich herausgefunden hat und warum Mobilfunkgegner den Medien berechtigtes Misstrauen entgegenbringen dürfen.
Hier ist die originale Arbeit. Sie wurde mir (K. P.) am 26. Nov. 2004 von Herrn Helle Collatz Christensen zur Verfügung gestellt.
Zum privaten Gebrauch, habe ich die Originalveröffentlichung (nochmals vielen Dank Herr H. C. Christensen) von Interphone Denmark in ein geschütztes Verzeichnis gestellt. Hier beim Download bitte folgendes angeben:
Here are some interesting details I have just found out about the Interphone study funding
On our Israeli Cancer Association's website, it is said that the Israeli arm of Interphone study is funded by the Israeli Cancer Association. Considering the fact that an executive of a cellular company is one of the director council members of the ICA, I tried digging further. The same website says also that the Interphone study is funded by both "EU and the cellular companies (UICC)". But a search on the internet shows that the UICC is not the cellular companies website but it is actually the International Union Against Cancer.
I called them, they are located in Geneva (Is it near the WHO building ...) and asked two representatives (one is an administrator in the director's office) whether the cellular companies fund the Interphone study through this organization, both confirmed, and the administrator was surprised I had learnt it from the Israeli website, because they (UICC) didn't write a word about it on the webiste. To my question why they don't publish this on their website, that they participate in funding the study, she said that it's because the study is not finished yet. She said that the organization is an intermediate and does not take the money to itself, only gives the money after the cellular
companies give it to the organization.
I asked her- why would the companies do something like that (use the organization), she said- because we are an independent organization. I told her, so then they do it in order to improve their public image, so it won't look like that they are funding the study?
She didn't know what to answer me, then she said well because they are concerned about the effects of mobile phones. But, I insisted, why don't they give the money directly, the concern [?..] does not interrupt them to give the money directly. She didn't have an answer. I asked her- can it be that they want people like me not to notice that they fund the study, and think that an independent body funds the study? again, she didn't have an answer.
I asked her- who are the industries that pay for the studies through them- are they European or also the U.S? She said she is not involved in it but that they are an international organization so it could be any country, so then she added the most beautiful part- that the Israeli Cancer Association is a member in this international organization and showed me the link on the internet:
and you can see how many cancer associations are members their. So I guess that when our Israeli Cancer Association writes
on the website that the Israeli arm of the study is funded by the Israeli Cancer association, then they mean the UICC and it means- by the industry... And the epidemiologist who leads the study is a lecturer in the Tel Aviv university on the issues of environment and guides doctorants on the subject of risks from cellular phones, while she is leading an industry funded study.
From: "Iris Atzmon" firstname.lastname@example.org