About Us
Contacts
Company Tour
Products
Non thermal studies
Our Research
Magnetotherapy
Electro Pollution
Endogenous Fields
Media File
The Coghill Challenge
The Natural World
Origins of Electricity
EMF Video Archives
TETRA
Photon Platinum
Review of 2003 NRPB Consultation Document
BIMT Prospectus
How to find us
Another side to the cellphone tumour saga: the word is acoustic neuroma. 24/01/2006 goto news index |
|
A new study will be published in the February issue of the International Journal of Oncology by Dr. Lennart Hardell and colleagues showing statistically significant increases in the risk of benign brain tumors, especially acoustic neuromas, following the use of mobile telephones. This study is particularly important because acoustic neuromas are considered to be a signal tumor for other types of malignant and benign brain lesions. These tumors occur in areas with the highest radio frequency radiation exposure during calls. Of primary concern is the finding that the greatest risk of developing these tumors was for persons who were first exposed before the age of twenty years. Thus, this is the first published study directly suggesting higher risks of tumors among teenagers who use mobile telephones. Other key points regarding this study are as follows: The study includes the largest analysis of benign tumors done to date and covers tumors diagnosed as recently as 2003 The study shows a dose-response relationship where greater numbers of hours of phone use results in ever increasing risks of developing tumors. This is particularly important because imprecision in measuring actual radiation exposure from hours of use tend to mask risks – thus, the risk increases presented in the study are likely to be underestimates, with true risk increases being higher Significantly greater risk is associated with having used mobile phones for more than 15 years, a finding consistent with other studies showing that risks dramatically increase after six and ten years of use. Index Medicus study reference: “Pooled analysis of two case-control studies of the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997-2003”, International Journal of Oncology 28: 509-518, 2006) The scientific argument about whether cellphone use causes brain tumours or not is subject to much politico-commercial pressure, as the foillowing website excerpts confirm. The glioma study was part funded by the cellphone industry, which raises doubts inevitably as to the independence of investigators like Dr David Coggon, who has often gone on record as not believing in any adverse effects from EMF. Professor Swerdlow and Dr Ahlbom, also iumplicated, are members of the ICNIRP committee. One might ask is it right to fund scientists to look for a connection with cancer and non-ionising radiation, when they hold prominent positions with ICNIRP? In the view of some, the ICNIRP committee seem determined to force global acceptance of the ICNIRP guidelines. Many countries such as Russia and China are fighting against accepting the ICNIRP guidelines as they do not consider them to be safe. Professor Swerdlow has also been given funding to oversee one of the largest UK breast cancer studies for many years to come. See enclosed details of Swerdlow and Allbom, its worth looking at the ICNIRP committee members on http://www.icnirp.de/cv.htm Also see evaluation of the Glioma report from Powerwatch and Frans. We are indebted to Eileen O’Connor (www.radiationresearch.org; and www.scram.uk.com) Chairman Prof. Dr. A. Ahlbom Karolinska Institutet, Sweden anders.ahlbom@imm.ki.se Anders Ahlbom is a Professor of Epidemiology, Head of the Division of Epidemiology and deputy director of the Institute of Environmental Medicine at the Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. Main research interests are environmental epidemiology with an emphasis on cancer, in particular non-ionizing radiation and cancer. He has a longstanding interest in cardiovascular diseases and their relation to the interaction of environmental factors and biomedical risk factors. His work spans epidemiologic theory and methods, including the basis for causal inference. Dr. Ahlbom is chairman of the ICNIRP Standing Committee on Epidemiology and has been an ICNIRP member since 1995. Commission Member Prof. Dr. A. J. Swerdlow Institute of Cancer Research, UK a.swerdlow@icr.ac.uk Anthony Swerdlow was educated in medicine at the universities of Cambridge and Oxford. After junior posts in clinical medicine, epidemiology and public health in the Oxford region and London, he worked in epidemiology at the University of Glasgow and at the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys before moving to the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine in 1987. He has been Professor of Epidemiology at the Institute of Cancer Research since July 2000. His research is in chronic disease epidemiology, mainly on cancer but also on other diseases including type 1 diabetes and CJD. His research interests have for many years included non-ionising radiation and he is currently a member of the NRPB Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation. Dr. Swerdlow has been a member of ICNIRP since February 1997. 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. Alasdair Philips Director of Powerwatch from Frans - Again misinformation via (because of ) the aligned media October 2005, Interphone researchers did not inform the public that 1.8 times more acoustic neuroma after ten years mobile phone use was found. Instead, they told the media that there is no heightened risk (Interphone study by M.J. Schoemaker, A.J. Swerdlow, S.J. Hepworth, P.A. McKinney, A. Ahlbom and others). Reuters forwarded the message to the world apparently without checking the report. See: http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v93/n7/index.html (last item) and: http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20050901_neuroma.asp January 2006, they did not inform the public that significantly more glioma was found at the side of mobile phone use, and significantly less glioma was found at the non-side. They told the media that the participants did not remember the side they used, and that a pattern was not seen for handedness (Interphone study by S.J. Hepworth, M.J. Schoemaker, A.J. Swerdlow, P.A. MacKinney and others. Yes, the same researchers). Reuters forwarded the message without checking the truth: a person's preferred hand for holding a mobile phone cannot be predicted from knowledge of their hand dominance. See: http://www.flinders.edu.au/speechpath/LINNETT_1.pdf and: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/rapidpdf/bmj.38720.687975.55v1 The researchers left out about 49% of the patients with glioma, because they died rapidly. They analysed the other patients, found no increased risk and concluded that the ones who died rapidly could not make a difference. The researchers write, that radiofrequency fields emitted by mobile phones are thought to be unable to cause malignancies by damage to DNA. Well, that is the paradigma that should be left. Instead, the Interphone studies take it for granted, though it has been shown by many studies that DNA is damaged by electromagnetic fields (Lai and Singh (Verenigde Staten), Adlkofer (Reflex, EU), Zhengping Xu (China), Xu Xi Shan (Korea) and others). The Interphone studies are funded by the EU, the Mobile Manufacturers Forum and the GSM Association. The United Kingdom studies are funded by the Department of Health and five network operators. The University of Leeds also received some financial support from five mobile network operators. One of the researchers has received funding from four mobile network operators before, for a feasibility study. Research funded by network operators and mobile phone organisations tends to find nothing. See: http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE3A.htm and elsewhere. The researchers say, their results are consistent with studies showing a lack of convincing and consistent evidence of any effect of exposure to radiofrequency field on risk of cancer. Who says so? 'Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure' (A. Ahlbom, D. Swerdlow and others. Yes, they are authors of the Interphone acoustic neuroma study) and 'Health risks of electromagnetic fields' (M. Repacholi and others. Repacholi is the coordinator of the EMF-radiation project of the WHO. He is the one who discards all the research showing evidence). Studies who find associations between tumours and mobile phone use are called 'individual', a word used by Repacholi who calls effects of electromagnetic fields 'a myth'. As usual, future studies will be able to address longer latency periods. |