Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Interphone Design Flaws / Call for changes / Tumors Underestimated / Non-informative / Further analysis / Pathetic interpretation / Pact With the Devil

W.E.E.P. News

Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution News 

19 May 2010


Please watch the enclosed important video Lloyd Morgan on Interphone Design Flaws. 

Please share widely. Thanks.

Camilla Rees






Kind Regards,
Eileen O'Connor
EM Radiation Research Trust





Experts call for changes in cell phone design, warnings, ban on use by children.

Institute for Health and the Environment, University at Albany, Rensselaer, New York

Ten-Year INTERPHONE Cell Phone Study Reports Increased Risk for Brain Cancer

May 18, 2010: Today's release of the final results of the ten-year long World Health Organization INTERPHONE Study confirms previous reports showing what many experts have warned – that regular use of a cell phone by adults can significantly increase the risk of glioma by 40% with 1640 hours or more of use (this is about one-half hour per day over ten years). Tumors were more likely to occur on the side of the head most used for calling. David Carpenter MD MPH, BioInitiative Report co-editor and Director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at University at Albany, Rensselaer, NY says that "While this study is not perfect, the risks documented in it must be taken seriously as a warning to limit cell phone use, to restrict the use of cell phones, especially by children, and to call on manufacturers for redesign of cell phones and PDAs. It should also serve as a warning to governments that the deployment of new wireless technologies may bring risks to the public that are widespread, involuntary and increase long-term health care costs."

The study appears in the International Journal of Epidemiology. Thirteen teams from countries around the world combined their results.

Michael Kundi, head of the Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna says of the study "Authors emphasize that no increased risk was detected overall. But this is not unexpected. No exposures to carcinogens that cause solid tumors like brain cancer or lung cancers, for example from tobacco and asbestos have ever been shown to significantly increase cancer risk in people with such short duration of exposure. The latency period for brain cancer is 15-30 years."

The INTERPHONE findings lend support to previous studies from Sweden's Orebro University Hospital, University of Utah and UC Berkeley where meta-analyses have all reported increased risk of glioma when combining results of brain tumor studies.

Lennart Hardell, Orebro University, Sweden concludes "The final INTERPHONE results support findings of several research groups, including our own, that continuing use of a mobile phone increases risk of brain cancer. We would not expect to see substantially increased brain tumor risk for most cancer-causing agents except in the longer term (10 year and longer) as is the case here in the population of regular cell phone users."

"The patients included in this study were 30-59 years old, excluding younger and older users. Use of cordless phones was neglected in the analysis. Radiofrequency radiation from some cordless phones can be as high as mobile phones in some countries, so excluding such use would underestimate the risk."

With more than four billion cell phone users around the world, the potential for a brain cancer epidemic leads experts to call for changes in cell phone design, warnings, and a ban on use by children. Children are more at risk than adults from the effects of most toxic exposures in life, including both chemicals and radiofrequency radiation from cell phones. Experts are worried about the effects of radiofrequency radiation on the developing brain and nervous system of children.

Public health warnings were raised in the BioInitiative Report on possible risks from cell phones and other exposures to electromagnetic fields (EMF) in 2007. It advised against the continuing deployment of sources of EMF and radiofrequency radiation from wireless technologies in advance of health studies, and argued for new biologically-based public safety limits to deal with emerging risks from new technologies. Results of the INTERPHONE study provide strong confirmation of the importance of these warnings.

Contact: info@bioinitiative.org, carpent@uamail.albany.edu

lennart.hardell@orebroll.se, michael.kundi@meduniwien.ac.at

Reports: Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study, The INTERPHONE Study Group, May 2010, International Journal of Epidemiology, 1-20.doi:10.1093/ije/dyq079




Press Release


Contact:   USA—Lloyd Morgan, Scientific Advisor

Radiation Research Trust



UK— Graham Philips


 01353 778422



Risks of Brain Tumors Among Cell Phone Users Underestimated in Interphone Study, Says International EMF Collaborative


Data for Acoustic Neuromas and Salivary Gland Tumors,

Located Closest to the Ear, Were Not Published—Group Asks for Full Disclosure and Urgent Research on Cell Phone Risks for Children 

Berkeley, CA and Sutton Coldfield, England, May 17, 2010. Authors of the report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone" have released a technical analysis of the long-awaited Interphone Study published today in the International Journal of Epidemiology. Download Report: www.radiationresearch.org. 

Despite the Interphone Study Group's long-awaited acknowledgment of increased risk of brain cancer among long-term, heavy users of cell phones, the International EMF Collaborative says the study's design results in serious underestimation of risk of brain cancer. 

The 11 key design flaws were fully detailed in the group's landmark report last August (http://snurl.com/wdgbd). One example was that individuals using cordless phones but not cellphones were considered 'unexposed' for purposes of the Interphone analysis, though exposed to the same radiation as cell phones. 

The results published today appear to show that in many cases use of a cellphone protects users from brain tumors, but this is a reflection of the design flaws, according to Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., lead author of "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern". Other issues with the Interphone study, he says, include: 

·        Results were only provided for brain cancers (gliomas) and meningiomas, but not tumors within the 20% of the brain's volume irradiated by cell phones.

·        Risk was not broken down by gender, which may have obfuscated even higher risk of meningiomas in women.

·        The 5-year old results are woefully inadequate as a gauge of risk today, as adults and children now speak on cell phones many hours a day compared to only 2- 2 ½ hours a month at that time. 

Eileen O'Connor, Director of the Radiation Research Trust and member of the International EMF Collaborative, says "Four billion people own mobile phones worldwide, many of those users are children. Responsible governments must advocate for public transparency of risks so that an informed public may have more options to exercise precaution". 




Design flaws make INTERPHONE non-informative

On May 18, 2010 was published in the International Journal of Epidemiology the summary result of INTERPHONE project the effect of mobile phone radiation on development of brain cancer (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/dyq079). Reading this article has confirmed my earlier concerns about the INTERPHONE, that I have presented, among others, in my earlier blog (How reliable is the epidemiological evidence on mobile phones and cancer?). For already some time I have suggested that INTERPHONE will not be able to give reliable answers whether there is, or is not, any link between use of mobile phones and cancer. This latest publication confirms my earlier concerns.

I could briefly summarize this latest INTERPHONE study as non-informative. This is in spite of INTERPHONE being the largest and the most expensive to date executed epidemiological study on mobile phones and cancer. At its conception, INTERPHONE was expected to provide reliable (even final) answers whether mobile phone radiation can cause brain cancer. However, it seems that flaws in the design of the study, which in fact were known from its beginning, have caused that the outcome of INTERPHONE is scientifically unreliable.

The major flaw in the study is the lack of information on how much people were exposed to mobile phone radiation. In case of INTERPHONE, when it was set up in 2000, network operators were not providing information about the use of mobile phones by the study subjects because the networks considered this information as trade secret. Therefore, researchers had to rely on peoples' memory. But, honestly, who remembers how much has used mobile phone even year, not mentioning 10 years, ago and on which side of the head? And such information was requested from the study subjects. It means, at least in my opinion, that the half of the INTERPHONE information – the dosimetry – about study subjects' exposure was extremely poor, to say the least (the second half is the pathological information about the cancers).

Further complication is the long latency period for brain tumors which can be somewhere between 10 – 20 years. At the time when the study was launched, in year 2000, there were very few people who used mobile phone for more that 10 years. That is why the group of the longest users (over 10 years) in the study is so small, what causes that its statistical evaluation is so unreliable.

Some of the other methodological problems with the INTERPHONE are listed in my earlier blog (How reliable is the epidemiological evidence on mobile phones and cancer?).

The INTERPHONE results concerning mobile phone use for less than 10 years are suggesting, according to the authors' conclusions, that there is no effect of mobile phone radiation on brain cancer. However, such conclusions are premature and unreliable because the results presented in the article suggest some kind of "protective effect". INTERPHONE scientists dismiss such result as unlikely and suggest that it was caused by the insufficient number of responding study subjects. Well, it might be so. But, this flaw should not be used as a proof that there is no effect. Furthermore, the potential possibility of existence of some kind of "protective effect" might not be so far fetched; especially that similar "protective effect" was seen in some animal studies. What this result means to me is that it is unreliable and it does not provide assurances that the use of mobile phone for less than 10 years will not cause cancer.

The results concerning possible increase of brain cancer in people who used mobile phones for longer than 10 years are also unreliable because this group of study subjects was relatively small and because of it the statistical analysis is mathematically uncertain. So, again, the reliable information is missing.

And there is still one issue that was not addressed by the INTERPHONE. Hypothetically, assuming that over 10 years of use of mobile phones increases risk of developing brain cancer, is it so that when one uses mobile phone for only 10 years and then stops, that then the cancer will not develop? Or, is it so, that already then the cancer development cascade has begun and stopping the use of mobile phone will not affect it? And, of course then comes to mind another question: for how many years one would need to use mobile phone to start such cascade of events leading to the development of cancer – for 10 years or 5 or 1 only? Such questions should be addressed and answered in the future epidemiological study too.

In summary, the cause of such inconclusive result of INTERPHONE is, in my opinion, dosimetry. In INTERPHONE was being compared a very good and reliable pathological information about the cancer with very poor and flawed dosimetrical information about the exposure. Such combination of "something reliable" with "something flawed" can only produce one outcome – the scientifically unreliable and non-informative result.

What it all means is that after 10 years of research and millions of euros used for it we are still in the starting point and do not have the answer whether, or whether not, mobile phone radiation could cause brain cancer.  

In my opinion, anyone claiming based on the just published INTERPHONE study that we have the answer concerning brain cancer and mobile phone radiation, should read it again.

However, because the result of the INTERPHONE presented in International Journal of Epidemiology is so inconclusive and non-informative, anyone can "pick-and-chose" suitable fragments and get "suiting conclusions". In short, put a spin on the INTERPHONE story that is the most confusing to decision makers and to the general public.

Some examples are below:

Reuters has quoted IARC Director Dr Christopher Wild as saying "the results really don't allow us to conclude that there is any risk associated with mobile phone use, but… it is also premature to say that there is no risk associated with it."

PR Newswire has quoted the IARC director Dr Christopher Wild, as saying: "An increased risk of brain cancer is not established from the data from INTERPHONE. However, observations at the highest level of cumulative call time and the changing patterns of mobile phone use since the period studied by INTERPHONE, particularly in young people, mean that further investigation of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk is merited."

It is confusing to think what it means. But at least to me, the Reuters report indicates that IARC Director is uncertain whether any valid conclusions can be drawn from INTERPHONE at all whereas PR Newswire indicates that the same IARC Director is assuring that INTERPHONE has not shown any brain cancer risk.

Also, when reading headlines, "head can spin" and one can agree with the Science News headline: Interphone's data on cell phones and cancer: The spin begins.

In the examples of media reports, listed below, one can find everything from yes to no to may be so. One can wonder whether the writers of these stories have all read the same article form the International Journal of Epidemiology (just being sarcastic…):

Yes: Half an hour of mobile use a day 'increases brain cancer risk' Telegraph.co.uk; WHO study says mobile use 'can raise brain cancer risk' The Hindu; Brain cancer link to mobile phones Herald Sun; Ten-year worldwide study links mobile phone use to cancer Daily Mail; Heavy mobile users risk cancer Times Online; Landmark study set to show potential dangers of heavy mobile phone use Telegraph.co.uk‎; Study links mobile phone use to brain tumours Scotsman;

No: 'No proof' of mobile phone cancer link Mirror.co.uk; Study finds no link in cell phone use, brain tumors CNN International; Study finds no brain cancer link to mobile phone use AFP; Study fails to link mobile phones, cancer ABC Science Online; Experts deny mobile phones cause tumours Sydney Morning Herald; 

May be so: Cell phone, cancer link inconclusive Detroit Free Press; Cancer from mobile use 'uncertain' The Press Association; Massive study can't say whether cellphone use causes brain cancer Vancouver Sun; Much mobile phone use causes brain cancer? Xinhua; Cellphone cancer study inconclusive; researcher urges more study Washington Post (blog); WHO study on mobile phone cancer risk 'inconclusive' BBC News; WHO study has no clear answer on phones and cancer Reuters; Mobile Phone Use and Brain Cancer Risk: Inconclusive Results from … Science Daily;  

And my favorite title comes from MSNBC:  No answer, just fuzz, from cell phone study. Unfortunately, this seems to be pretty precise description of the outcome of the INTERPHONE.


We still do not know whether mobile phone use could cause brain cancer or any other disease. Because the use of mobile phones has become essential part of our life we can not and we should not discourage people from using them. However, it is prudent to advice caution and urge to reduce exposures to mobile phone radiation whenever possible or feasible, especially in children.

Further analysis of INTERPHONE data

Having done further analysis of the data in the recently published pooled INTERPHONE data, the indication that long term phone use could increase brain tumour risk is becoming strikingly apparent.

Click for the full news story -

From: Arthur Joyce <ajoyce@uniserve.com>
Date: May 18, 2010 12:24:31 PM PDT (CA)
Subject: Interphone study report 

Dear Ms. Colina: I write in response to the BC Cancer Agency's flawed interpretation of the recently released Interphone study results. It seems that depending on reporter or scientist bias, the results of this study are interpreted differently. As a freelance journalist who has been studying this issue for three years now, I can tell you two important facts that the report below overlooks: 1) an analysis of an earlier draft of Interphone by over 40 doctors, scientists and health professionals concluded that there were significant methodological flaws in the study, calling its validity into question; and 2) there are literally thousands of other studies, some going back to the early 1970s done by the US military (but kept secret until recently), showing serious biological harm from exposure to microwaves in the frequency spectrum typically used by cell phones. 

The best meta-analysis done to date on some 2,000 studies is still the BioInitiative Report (www.bioinitiative.org), which—in contrast to the Interphone study—received no funding from the telecommunications industry. That the principle of conflict of interest has been so grossly ignored in the case of the Interphone study is shameful. Why else would it have taken so many years to release the results except that even with this poorly designed study, there were serious indications of increased risk of brain tumours from prolonged cell phone use? 

The BC Cancer Agency does itself a disservice relying on Ms. McBride's strange, plainly wrong interpretation of Interphone. You are placing thousands of British Columbians at further risk by claiming there is no risk to using cell phones, especially to children who are more vulnerable. This is shameful, when there are plenty of studies to demonstrate risk. We should proceed, not on 100 percent scientific certainty as the industry would like, but on the Precautionary Principle.

Attached is the document analyzing the flaws in the Interphone study. Kindly pass it along to Dr. McBride and make it available to your clients should they require more information on this subject.


Sean Arthur (Art) Joyce

The Boy Scouts: A Pact With the Devil

by Harry Brill
Thursday May 13, 2010

Both the wireless corporations and the federal government have hidden from the public the substantial number of studies that reveal a cause and effect relationship between cell phone sites -- towers, antennas, and other equipment -- and their adverse health effects, including cancer. In fact, in some instances, discomforting symptoms appear shortly after exposure as well as in the long run. Nor is the public warned that children are especially vulnerable, with twice the leukemia rates for those residing near cell towers compared to children who live further away. Nevertheless, despite the corporate denial of the harm done, a growing number of communities have been catching on.

An El Cerrito community is attempting to prevent a 77 foot tower from being installed in a boy scout camp that is located next to a residential neighborhood and a beautiful park heavily used by children and adults. The community's problem is that it is battling two goliaths; the Mt. Diablo Silverado Council of the Boy Scouts of America and T-Mobile. T-Mobile, which is a giant German based multinational corporation, that offered the Council $2200 per month for the right to build the tower. The Mt. Diablo Council, which is an umbrella organization serving over 22,000 youth in several east bay counties, agreed to the deal.

From the perspective of the community, it is a pact made in hell. The Boy Scout facility, Camp Herms, would be funded at the expense of community residents. The life span of many residents would be threatened, family life could be disrupted, and property values would decline along with the quality of life. For Mt. Diablo Silverado Council and T-Mobile, it is business without morality.

Those who have been involved in this bitter struggle have learned firsthand how the highly moralistic rhetoric of the boy scout decision makers is light years ahead of its deeds. The Club claims its mission is to prepare young people to make "ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes". Scouts are expected "to HELP other people at all times". But in reality, its decision to allow the tower will instead HURT other people at all times.

In fact, the Mt. Diablo Council signed the contract with T-Mobile without adequately consulting and meeting with the community. The community has asked for meetings for the purpose of exploring alternatives to the tower that would serve the interests of both the Scouts and community. Although the task of persuading the scouts may be difficult, many contracts are rescinded without legal challenges. But the Mt. Diablo Council has refused to meet and discuss the issues with those who will be impacted. So the real and awful lesson the boy scouts have learned so far is that the commitment to be respectful is worth suspending if the price is right.

The Scouts have claimed that the research doesn't prove that there is any serious threat to residents. Yet believe it or not, T-Mobile is aware of the health risks. The company had some years earlier retained a highly rated independent research institute to evaluate the possible impact of electromagnetic radiation. The study found the following: "Given the results of the present epidemiological studies it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer."* Though the study was done in Germany, an English translation has been available since 2003.

This was not the first time that company sponsored research has revealed adverse health effects of these electromagnetic emissions. The telecommunication industry gave 28.5 million dollars to a scientific group in 1993 who it believed that it could count on. It was headed by Dr. George Carlo who had earlier found that environmental tobacco smoke was not carcinogenic and that the highly toxic dioxin produced by Dow Chemical Corporation was not really very toxic. But Dr. Carlo turned out to be a disappointment. His team concluded that electromagnetic emissions are dangerous and carcinogenic. He reported the findings to the Industry expecting that they would make important changes. Instead, he became victim of an attempt to discredit his work and attack his reputation.

By partnering with T-Mobile, the Mt. Diablo Council has decided for the sake of the mighty dollar to do business with a corporation that already knows from the research it commissioned that electromagnetic admissions is carcinogenic. Before it is too late, the Mt. Diablo Council should instead reflect a very different kind of ethic for the young people it serves. It should cease saying one thing and practicing another. In short, the Council should rescind its decision to sell its soul to the devil.


* Mobile Telecommunications and Health, Ecolog Institute, April 2000 Authors: Dr. K. Hennies, Dr. H. Neitzke, Dr. H. Voigt. Translator: Andrea Klein, page 33.



Why did the Russians Ban an Appliance Found in 90% of American Homes?

Posted by Dr. Mercola | May 18 2010



Web site www.weepinitiative.org    e-mail contactweep@weepinitiative.org

To sign up for WEEP News: newssignup@weepinitiative.org  (provide name and e-mail address)

W.E.E.P. – The Canadian initiative to stop Wireless Electrical and Electromagnetic Pollution