Swiss association Gigaherz will celebrate the 15th anniversary of its existence. On this occasion Gigahertz is organizing Jubiläums-Generalversammlung taking place in Thalvil (near Zurich) on March 7, 2015. Dariusz Leszczynski will be the keynote speaker at this meeting with presentation discussing the validity of the currently available science on cell phone radiation and health, in […]
Read more of this notice here
From Joel M. Moskowitz
Joel’s comment: An annotated version of the original Forbes article (Jan 12, 2015), “Study Suggests Wi-Fi Exposure More Dangerous To Kids Than Previously Thought,” is available on the The “Take Back Your Power” web site if you wish to compare the original version of this article with the revised version that now appears on the Forbes web site (updated on Jan 14, 2015).
Forbes Magazine Caves to Industry Pressure
Coalition to Stop Smart Meters, Jan 13, 2015
An example of how industry influences news. Two days ago I sent out the original version of an article by Forbes saying that a study showed that wifi could be more dangerous to children than previously thought. Here is the original version of some parts along with the “updates” and a new ending version that is now on the web:
“More generally, the studies cited in the paper found RF/EMF exposure is linked to cancers of the brain and salivary glands, ADHD, low sperm count, and, among girls who keep cell phones in their bra, breast cancer….
CHANGED TO:
“More generally, the studies cited in the paper seek to link RF/EMF exposure to different types of cancer, low sperm count, and other disorders.”
NEW ADDITION:
“However, it is important to note that studies such as these need to be taken in their proper context. This particular study is one group’s perspective. It was published in a relatively new and minor journal with limited data sets. They also note that the average time between exposure to a carcinogen and a resultant tumor is three or more decades, thus making it difficult to arrive at definitive conclusions.”
SNIP
From Lennart Hardell’s blog:
Excerpt
The carcinogenic effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) on humans was evaluated at a meeting during 24 – 31 May 2011 at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO in Lyon, France. The Working Group categorised RF-EMF from mobile phones, and from other devices that emit similar non-ionising electromagnetic fields, as a Group 2B, i.e. a ‘possible’, human carcinogen.
After that meeting supportive evidence has come from e.g. the French CERENAT study and also our recent publication on glioma. An increased risk for acoustic neuroma associated with use of wireless phones was published by our research group after the meeting giving pooled results of our study periods 1997-2003 and 2007-2009. Also other studies have reported similar findings.
We evaluated the Hill viewpoints on association and causation used in the 1960’s in the debate on lung cancer risk among smokers. Using these viewpoints our summary was that RF-EMF exposure should be a Group 1 carcinogen according to IARC criteria. There is now a petition to support that notion aiming at alerting IARC to classify such exposure to cause human cancer. Those who want to support the petition can follow this link.
SNIP
From Dariusz Leszczynski’s blog: Between a Rock and a Hard Place.
Excerpt:
Epidemiological evidence is considered as the most important evidence when evaluating possibility of health effects induced by radiation emitted by wireless communication devices (RF-EMF). I disagree with this notion because of the intrinsic limitations of epidemiological method. It is too crude method to give reliable answers. I am not alone in this opinion. Notably, Michael Repacholi, former Head of the WHO EMF Project has similar opinion and he said in his Guest Blog on BRHP: “my concern is that there is an over-reliance on epidemiology studies.”
The problem with the, so far, executed epidemiological studies in RF-EMF area is the inadequate radiation dosimetry.
In some studies, like the case-control studies (Interphone, Hardell and CERENAT) the dosimetry is based on what person remembers. It is very crude information. However, in defense of the planners of case-control studies, it is necessary to mention that when the Interphone was being planned, and I participated in these discussions as then Head of Radiation Biology Laboratory of STUK, scientists asked network operators to provide information on the use of cell phones by study subjects. Operators refused, calling the information “trade secret”. So, the scientists had to rely on peoples’ memory…
Situation of dosimetry data in cohort studies is even worse. Scientists attempted to avoid reliance on users’ memory but, instead of improving exposure data, they made it worse. The dosimetry evidence in cohort studies, Danish Cohort and Million Women Study, is absolutely inadequate to use it as proof of no risk of cancer from the use of cell phones.
However, the ICNIRP scientists just do so. They quote Danish Cohort and Million Women Study as the evidence of no cancer risk. At the same time they simply dismiss the evidence provided by the case control studies.
In the past, I wrote critically about the Danish Cohort and the UK’s Million Women Study.
My critical evaluation of the Danish Cohort was published in The Scientist Magazine whereas evaluation of the Million Women Study I published in my blog on The Washington Times Communities site.
SNIP
(Ever wonder why Lennart Hardell is never invited to be a member of ICNIRP or give a presentation at one of their seminars?)
The Huffington Post Canada | By Rebecca Zamon
Posted: 11/12/2014 4:05 pm EST
Excerpt:
A new study out of Sweden indicates that talking on cellphones and even cordless phones can be related to a certain form of brain cancer. The study, published in the journal Pathophysiology in October, analyzed the results of 1,498 cases of people with malignant brain tumours and 3,530 controls to determine whether phone use had any effect on their cancer. In their findings, it appeared that the longer a person used a cell or cordless phone, the more likely they were to get become gliomas, a type of tumour found in the brain or spinal cord that is malignant in 80 per cent of cases, according to WebMD. “The risk is three times higher after 25 years of use. We can see this clearly,” the study’s lead researcher, Dr. Lennart Hardell, told Reuters.
SNIP
Read more →From Mona Nilsson, The Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation
20 October, 2014
An increasing number of patients are treated for brain tumor ”of unknown nature” in Sweden since 2008, but the increase is not reflected in the national cancer registry. – It is serious if the statistics on new cases of brain tumors is incorrect because the brain tumor statistics is widely being used as an argument that cell phones do not increase the risk of cancer and brain tumors, says Mona Nilsson, Chairman of Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation.
The Swedish Radiation Protection Foundation has compiled statistics from the Swedish Health Board registry’s database on the number of patients treated for brain tumors in Sweden as well as from the cancer registry and cause of death registry, during the last decade. The number of people receiving treatment for a brain tumor “of unknown nature” increased by almost 30% between 2008 and 2012. At the same time, the number of patients with a confirmed brain tumor diagnosis remained at a relatively stable level.
Read more: http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2014/10/increase-brain-tumors/
Read more →Sent to this list by Agnes Ingvarsdottir:
Excerpt
This is breaking news from a Finnish newspaper, sent to us (in Finnish) by Dariusz Leszczynski. My son Henrik has translated the Article/Interview to English with the blessing of Dariusz. See the original (with the translation) ot Dariusz blog:
SNIP
Read more →Press Release from Joel M. Moskowitz:
Excerpt
iPhone 6 SAR: Radiation Levels and Separation Distance
What are the SAR levels for Apple’s iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus? What is the minimum body separation distance? How should the consumer use this information?
PRLog – Sep. 20, 2014 – BERKELEY, Calif. — For both Apple iPhone 6 models, the SAR level for the head is 1.18. When using a body-worn accessory to keep the phone five millimeters from the body, the SAR level is 1.18 for the iPhone 6 and 1.19 for the iPhone 6 Plus. (1, 2) Thus, the minimum separation distance that the phones should be kept from the body is approximately two-tenths of an inch (i.e., 5 millimeters).
SNIP
To ensure that the cell phone does not exceed the legal limit, consumers should never keep their cell phone in their pockets or next to their skin. The cell phone is not tested directly against the body because most cell phones would fail the SAR test as the radiation absorption increases dramatically when the cell phone is close to the body.
SNIP
Excerpt
Dariusz Leszczynski visiting India – days 1 & 2
Posted on September 16, 2014
The first three days of visit to India, New Delhi are over.
On the first day, arrival day on Sunday, September 14th, 2014, walk through the Old Delhi reminded me how serious is the India’s problem of sitting of the cell towers and the cell antennas. It looks very haphazard and often the close proximity of antennas to apartments and balconies causes risky exposure situations….The general impression from these meetings is that officials are concerned with the health risks associated with exposures to cell phone, cell tower and wi-fi networks radiation and are receptive for suggestions how to resolve health concern issues to the satisfaction of both, users and providers.
SNIP
Following on from the last message, see an excellent presentation on causes and incidence of childhood cancer by Professor Annie Sasco from the Alliance of prevention and precaution for childhood cancer control. Presentation given at the international conference Childhood Cancer 2012. http://www.childhoodcancer2012.org.uk/programme.asp#
SESSION 12 – What positive steps can be taken to reduce the risk of childhood cancer?
Chair: Professor Richard Stevens
See Prof.Sasco’s presentation by scrollong down to SESSION 12. “What positive steps can be taken to reduce the risk of childhood cancer?”. Her presentation is the first one for the session. http://www.childhoodcancer2012.org.uk/programme.asp#
Presentation slides: http://www.childhoodcancer2012.org.uk/slides/session12.1-sasco.pdf
Read more →From Daily Mail Australia, August 29m 2014
Two brave little girls – and their battle with Australia’s deadliest childhood disease: Eloise died at ten. Hana has endured invasive surgery. So why is just 3% of research cash spent on helping the children struck down by brain cancer?
* Most Australians don’t know that brain cancer kills more children than any other disease
* Only three per cent of National Health and Medical Research Council funding has gone towards brain cancer
* More high profile cancers like breast cancers and Leukemia received 11 per cent of all research funding
* Barrie Littlefield, who lost his 10-year-old daughter Eloise to brain cancer, urges the community to donate to help find a cure
There was nothing more precious in the world for Barrie Littlefield when his daughter was born. Eloise Littlefield was daddy’s little girl. The pair were inseparable up until the moment the 10-year-old was tragically taken away by what’s been described as the number one killer among Australian children – brain cancer. Eloise lost her battle to brain cancer in 2011. But her story isn’t one that’s unique. Australian neurosurgeon Charlie Teo says the disease kills more children than any other, yet nine out of 10 Australians are completely unaware of this statistic.
SNIP
From Dariusz Leszczynski:
Excerpt
The Anti-Precautionary Principle Lobby at Work… Again…
Gallery
Posted on August 21, 2014
Year 2003
Louis Slesin, editor of the Microwave News, reported that in the spring of 2003, then the WHO’s EMF Project leaders, Mike Repacholi and Leeka Kheifets announced “that “there is “sufficient evidence” to apply the precautionary principle to both power-frequency and high-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs)” (See link to MWN). Soon after, the announcement concerning precautionary approach was removed from the WHO EMF Project’s site. Someone was afraid of the Precautionary Principle and the precautionary approach.
SNIP
From Louis Slesin, Microwave News:
Excerpt
August 16, 2014
Last updated
August 20, 2014
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention –CDC– is the first U.S. health agency to call for precaution in the use of cell phones. (But not for long. As soon as word of the CDC’s new outlook spread, the precautionary advice was withdrawn. Our original story is below, followed by an August 20 addendum.) “Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use,” the CDC stated on its Web site’s FAQ About Cell Phones and Your Health and followed up with a call for more research to answer the unresolved cancer question. The recommendation was posted on the CDC’s Web site on or before June 9. It passed mostly unnoticed until a few days ago when Joel Moskowitz, who writes a blog on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, sent out a press release announcing the news.
SNIP
Recently I gave an interview for the Mumbai newspaper DNA INDIA (Daily News & Analysis INDIA). It was published today under the headline ‘Use of cell phones increases cancer risk’.
My concluding comment of the interview is:
“…The industry likes to call on scientists who will endorse their product and say that it is safe. Hence, Dr Repacholi visited India and spoke publicly about the safety of cell phones as well as cell towers. I disagree with Dr Repacholi. He says that we don’t have and we will not have in the future health problems due to cell phone and cell tower radiation. In my opinion the scientific evidence is still insufficient to say that cell phone radiation is harmless. We need both better research and, for the time being, implementation of the European Union’s Precautionary Principle until there is further clarity…”
The full interview is available on-line Leszczynski in DNA INDIA
Read more →From Louis Slesin, Editor of Microwave News:
Excerpt
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention –CDC– has become the first U.S. health agency to call for precaution in the use of cell phones. “Along with many organizations worldwide, we recommend caution in cell phone use,” the CDC states on its Web site’s FAQ About Cell Phones and Your Health. It follows up with a call for more research to answer the unresolved cancer question. The recommendation was posted on the CDC’s Web site on or before, June 9. It passed mostly unnoticed until a few days ago when Joel Moskowitz, who writes a blog on Electromagnetic Radiation Safety, sent out a press release announcing the news. “I am pleased to see that the CDC, the lead public health action agency in the United States, is reassuming its leadership role by warning the public about this health risk,” he said in an interview with Microwave News. Moskowitz is the director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health.
SNIP
Read more →From the blog of Dariusz Leszczynski, Between a Rock and A Hard Place:
Excerpt:
August 14, 2014
In May/June 2011, 30 experts (I was one of them) invited by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), gathered in Lyon to discuss the scientific studies on radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) and cancer.
After intense deliberations, to the great surprise of the world-at-large, experts decided to classify RF-EMF emitted by e.g. cell phones, cell towers and wi-fi networks, as a possible human carcinogen – in IARC scale “2B carcinogen”.
IARC has somewhat complicated but detailed set of rules that guide classification of carcinogenicity. The rules are in place to prevent “out of the blue sky” classifications. Protocols need to be followed and requirements fulfilled before carcinogen is classified.
Once the evidence from human studies is determined to be limited, and the same limited evidence is assigned to the evidence from experimental animal studies, classification of RF was automatically set as 2B possible carcinogen (for details see Preamble of IARC Monograph 102).
There are three possible scenarios that could change classification from 2B possible carcinogen to a higher group of carcinogenicity.
SNIP
From Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Children Face the Highest Health Risk From Cell Phones
Roxanne Nelson, Medscape Medical News, August 13, 2014
The potential harm from microwave radiation (MWR) emitted by wireless devices, particularly for children and unborn babies, is the highlight of a new review.
Although the data are conflicting, associations between MWR and cancer have been observed.
The review, by L. Lloyd Morgan, senior science fellow at Environmental Health Trust, and colleagues, was published online July 15 in the Journal of Microscopy and Ultrastructure.
The authors reviewed the current literature showing that children face a higher health risk than adults. They evaluated peer-reviewed cell phone exposure epidemiology from 2009 to 2014, along with cell phone dosimetry data, government documents, manufacturers’ manuals, and similar publications.
Children and unborn babies face the highest risk for neurologic and biologic damage that results from MWR emitted by wireless devices, according to Morgan and colleagues.
The rate of absorption is higher in children than adults because their brain tissues are more absorbent, their skulls are thinner, and their relative size is smaller. The fetus is particularly vulnerable because MWR exposure can result in degeneration of the protective myelin sheath that surrounds brain neurons, they report.
SNIP
Read more →From Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.:
Joel’s comments: This superior court ruling enables the discovery phase of the trial to begin. Perhaps, we will soon learn whether the wireless industry has been covering up knowledge of the health risks of mobile phone use.
The insurance industry has refused to provide product liability insurance on cell phones primarily due to this concern as they fear that cell phone litigation may turn out like tobacco or asbestos litigation did with huge punitive awards.
My most recent press release, “FCC: 98 Scientific Experts Demand Stronger Regulation of Cellphone Radiation” makes the case that the scientific community has known for many years about the health risks of mobile phone radiation. The wireless industry, however, has confused government officials and the public by co-opting scientists to support the industry’s disinformation campaign to buy time.
SNIP
Get ready for an upgrade if you want to access 4G.
AUSTRALIA’S two biggest telcos will force customers to upgrade their phones and tablets to use new 4G networks as the network additions do not support most smartphones, including Apple iPhones and flagship smartphones from Sony and Nokia.
Vodafone criticised new 4G networks from Telstra and Optus today while announcing its own 4G extension that it promises will cover “95 per cent of Australia’s metropolitan population” by the end of the year.
SNIP
From Joel Moskowitz:
Press Release
Of the more than 950 submissions to the FCC regarding its outmoded, 18-year-old cell phone radiation regulations, almost all call for stronger regulation. Most cite research that finds cell phone radiation harmful to humans.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., PRLog (Press Release)- Aug. 4, 2014 – BERKELEY, Calif. — In response to the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) request for input regarding its radiofrequency radiation regulations adopted in 1996, more than 950 individuals and organizations submitted thousands of testimonials, research papers and scientific publications. Almost all of these submissions supported the need for stronger cell phone radiation regulations.
The submissions included four resolutions signed by scientific experts who have published research on wireless radiation and health in scientific journals. These resolutions call on governments to issue stronger regulations on wireless radiation, especially cell phone radiation … (Part III: Why We Need Stronger Cell Phone Radiation Regulations–98 Scientific Experts Who Signed Resolutions”).
SNIP