June 15… EMFs are hot. People are
interested again and things are happening, at least for the moment. Here's some of what's
going on:
• The French government is stepping up its efforts to limit the use of cell phones by children.
It's not just talk. Ministers of State are now involved. Legislation and regulation are in play.
Public interest in France has never been greater. An example: Sciences et Avenir, a major
French science magazine, devoted a special "dossier"
on EMFs:
What You Really Need To Know in the May issue. It runs 21 pages, in color.
• A Congressional briefing on cell phones and health
risks is scheduled to be held in Washington in mid-September. Senator Arlen Specter,
a brain tumor survivor, is slated to participate. This would be the first time a U.S. senator has publicly expressed interest in RF radiation
since the 1977 hearings on Radiation Health and Safety. "It's the right time and we're going to make it happen,"
one of the organizers told Microwave News. Meanwhile, two large-circulation national magazines,
GQ and Harper's,
have commissioned feature articles on EMFs.
• After a decade of work —and lots of internecine squabbling— the Interphone study team has finally been
submitted its results for publication. The director of IARC himself orchestrated its release from a
perpetual state of limbo. We hear the paper is under expedited review. Everybody wants to see the paper but no one expects it to settle much of
anything. The disputes will just move out into the open. If the Interphone epidemiologists spent three-to-four years fighting over
how to explain the tumor risks, the public debate will surely be fierce. Also, don't forget that much of the Interphone data has yet to be
analyzed.
Against this backdrop, the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) is holding its annual conference in Davos, Switzerland, this week. A 90-minute
slot was left open on Friday, the last day of the meeting, for a "Hot Topic," to be announced at the last minute to be as topical as
possible. What did the organizers pick? —
"When Do We Know Enough To Stop Research on the Safety of Wireless Communications?"
It could be the punch line of a bad joke. A society that is supposed to be dedicated to research suggests it might well be time to give it up. In poker, it's
called a "tell." It tells you what's really going on. "Stop the research" is an industry mantra —another is, "the weight of the evidence shows there is
no cancer risk"— and BEMS is all too willing to play along.
BEMS has always had a schizoid relationship with research. It is one of the
few research societies that rewards those who don't find effects and runs out those who do. No wonder the society's future viability is in doubt.
That same Friday, the leaders of BEMS and the European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA) will meet to discuss the possibility that the two groups might join together.
Right now, that seems unlikely, as neither side wants to lose control.
We suggest a different model: a "Big Tent" approach. Not only should BEMS
and EBEA merge, but they should seek alliances with all the other groups that work in the field: Those who work on visible light,
on bone and wound healing, on sleep, on hyperthermia, on cancer therapy, on pain control, on animal magnetism, on avian navigation and so on. These are
all part of bioelectromagnetics and only an integrated approach will lead to answers. The one problem with this concept is
that it would mean that BEMS would have to shrug off the influence of the wireless industry and the military, which now dominate the society.
That's not likely either, we know.
Also on that same Friday, June 19, the New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS) is holding a one-day conference on
Circadian Disruption and
Cancer. Among the speakers will be David Blask, Russel Reiter and Bugs Stevens, former regulars
at BEMS meetings. It's time to lure them and other serious scientists back into the fold. The only way to do that is to commit
to research, not repudiate it.
June 11… At a time when there are calls for tightening EMF power-frequency exposure standards to address cancer risks, Australia
is moving in the opposite direction. In mid-May, a committee working under ARPANSA,
the national radiation protection agency, distributed a draft proposal that would triple the permissible exposure levels for the
general public. If these rules are adopted, children could be exposed to up 3,000mG, 24/7 —that's one thousand times
higher than the 3mG threshold for childhood leukemia indicated by epidemiological studies,
and three times higher than the ICNIRP
recommended limit of 1,000mG.
Download a pdf of this
news and commentJune 3… In the mid-1970s, the U.S. EPA sent a van around the country to survey RF levels in various cities,
as well as from high-power sources such as radio and TV broadcast antennas, radars and satellite uplinks. The agency generated a trove of reports
which describe the electromagnetic environment before the wireless revolution took hold. Some members of EPA's RF group continue to
work on health issues —Norb Hankin is still at the EPA, Ed Mantiply moved over to the FCC some years ago — but the EPA van is long gone.
No one in the U.S. is doing these types of radiation surveys anymore.
The good news is that a Swiss team has now completed its own set of RF measurements, which take into account the proliferation of wireless sources. The new survey
is based on exposure profiles of 166 residents of Basel, a town with a population of just under 200,000.
It's part of a larger project, called "Qualifex" led by
Martin Röösli of the University of Basel and sponsored by the
Swiss National Research Program on Non-Ionizing Radiation, known as NRP57. The results are in a
new paper that has just been published in Environmental Research.
Overall, the survey found a roughly tenfold increase in overall RF exposures in Switzerland compared to the levels found by the EPA in the U.S. It
provides some additional insights: Yes, mobile phones and towers are major
contributors to overall exposure, but so are cordless (DECT) phones, as is riding on a train or a bus. Airports may be hot zones too.
The DECT finding could turn out to be a problem for the forthcoming Interphone study, which gives cordless
phones short shrift. As for passive or second-hand RF exposures, their contribution can be important in confined spaces such as on public transportation (see May 15 post below).
Here's some of what they found, in their own words:
"Exposure levels were high in trains, tramways and buses, with a high contribution of mobile phone handsets. This was not only due to calls by fellow passengers but also due to the hand-overs during the journey of mobile phone handsets from one base station to the next. Exposure to mobile phone handset radiation in public transport was only slightly lower for persons not owning a mobile phone, showing that passive mobile phone exposure plays an important role in these situations. We found also high exposure levels at airports, but analyses were based on relatively few measurements (5h in total), and these results should therefore be confirmed in future studies. The low exposures measured at churches and school buildings are explained by the infrequent use of mobile phone handsets at these places. Similarly the lower exposure during night compared to daytime is explained by the smaller contribution of mobile phone handsets. Considerable exposure contrasts were also found between individuals. Explanations for this include difference in exposure at home or at work from fixed site transmitters (mobile phone base stations or broadcast transmitters) and from wireless devices (mobile phone handsets, DECT phones, W-LAN) and different life styles resulting in more or less frequent stays at locations with high exposure levels. Although mobile phone uplink was the major exposure source at most of the locations, mobile phone base stations and cordless phones contributed substantially to total exposure."
May 28… Christopher Wild, the director of the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
announced today that the Interphone study has been submitted for publication. An advisory,
"Status of the Interphone Study" has been posted on the
IARC, CREAL and
UICC Web sites. Wild does not say to which journal the paper was sent.
As Microwave News
reported on May 11, the submitted manuscript only
addresses brain tumor (gliomas and meningiomas) risks from mobile phones. Still to be completed are the analyses for acoustic neuroma and
parotid gland tumors, as well as for tumor location relative to RF radiation exposure.
Wild states that, "Work is on-going to prepare subsequent manuscripts for publication."
May 15 … There are many reasons not to use a cell phone in an elevator. The most obvious would be as a courtesy to other passengers. Another is that a
phone has to work harder in a shielded space. It's forced to operate at higher power levels for the signal to get out and reach the nearest tower and that
leads to more ambient radiation in the elevator. What most cell phone users would never consider is that a fellow passenger absorbs some of the radiation that would otherwise bounce back
off the walls. It turns out, according to some new calculations from Japan,
that a lone user can get a maximum exposure of about 1.6W/Kg, 80% of the ICNIRP standard (2W/Kg). But be advised that
exposures could exceed the current U.S. FCC standard by a wide margin, under worst-case conditions.
(This is a rare —no, unique— example of an American EMF standard being stricter than those in other countries.) The FCC limit is
averaged over only 1g of tissue and, as Jim Lin, a member of ICNIRP, has
often pointed out, increasing the averaging volume from 1g to 10g could triple the allowable radiation exposure (see MWN, N/D00, p.3). These new
findings appear in the May issue of the
IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques.
What about the passenger? Here again, the exposure would be just a brief elevator ride. But, if you believe the work from
Lund University in Sweden, even those passive, or second-hand, exposures could lead to biological changes. Lund's
Leif Salford has long reported that he sees stronger effects in the brain at low, not high,
radiation levels. When everyone else is talking about W/Kg, Salford speaks in terms of mW/Kg, exposures
that are a thousand times lower. At last month's
5th International EMF Seminar in Hangzhou, China, Salford explained why he is convinced the microwave effect on the blood-brain
barrier is real: "We've consistently seen it over 21 years."
May 11… The stalemate over Interphone
is coming to an end. A project of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on the possible links between
mobile phones and tumors, Interphone has been bogged down for over three years while its members feuded over how to interpret their results. Now,
Microwave News has learned, a paper on brain tumor risks is about to be submitted for publication. Christopher Wild,
the director of IARC, forced a compromise to resolve what had become a major embarrassment for the agency.
In fact, Wild has only achieved a partial resolution. After the brain tumor paper is finally published later this year, much more work on Interphone will still need to be done.
A draft of the brain tumor (gliomas and meningiomas) results was completed back in 2005, but the principal investigators in the 13 countries participating in the Interphone project were unable to agree on
how to frame the results. Some believed that the data point to higher risks, while others dismissed these findings as artifacts. A number of further drafts were circulated over the years, but in each case
a consensus could not be reached. While the final group paper remained in limbo, teams from individual countries published their own results. Five European countries pooled
their data and published them too. A number of these papers have indicated a tumor risk associated with long-term use of cell phones.
In January, when he took over as the head of IARC, Wild set out to break the impasse and bring an end to the growing criticism of his agency. For instance, the Economist
ran an item last fall under the title "Mobile Madness" and
declared that Interphone had "ended in chaos" (see our post of September 26, 2008).
Wild established a three-person working group to revise the brain tumor paper —he himself was one of the three— and
demanded that all participating project investigators accept this group's version as the final text.
Download a pdf of this
news and commentApril 25 … Is it possible that the precautionary principle could do more harm than good? Could the mere suggestion of a health risk
bring on effects that it was intended to avoid? Such a phenomenon is known as the nocebo effect and has been much discussed in relation to EMFs in general
and electrohypersensitivity in particular. For a cogent analysis of all this, check out Stuart Blackman's
"Why Health
Warnings Can Be Bad," in today's Financial Times Weekend magazine.
Blackman quotes James Rubin of Kings College London: "There is
no robust evidence that there is a direct link [between reported symptoms and EMFs], and there is reasonably robust evidence that there is no link." Rubin believes that
the symptoms are real, but the causes are psychological rather than physiological. Rubin was a speaker at last September's conference, "'EMF & Health – A
Global Issue' – Exploring Appropriate Precautionary Approaches." See also his paper: "Electrosensitivity: A Case for Caution with Precaution."
A case in point: Last Sunday, the Journal de Dimanche, a leading French newspaper, reported
on the Dubas family whose apartment in the Paris suburbs faces three mobile phone antennas installed by Orange, a unit
of France Telecom. Thomas Dubas said that he gets a metallic taste in his mouth when the antenna is transmitting; meanwhile his five-year-old daughter developed a bloody
nose and a neighbor complained of headaches. A spokesman for Orange
responded that while the company was sympathetic with the local residents, it could not be held responsible because the antennas had not yet been activated, according to the Web site
Silicon.fr.
Here are Blackman's provocative closing words of caution:
Legal cases brought against mobile phone companies by people who believe that the electromagnetic radiation given off by their handsets is making them ill might have failed, but cases brought against those who issue health warnings, on the grounds that it exacerbates illness through the nocebo effect, might prove more successful. At least they would have some scientific evidence to support their claims.
April 10 … Shows on cell phone radiation are all over the TV news —at least in Australia and Europe, if not the U.S.
One theme that runs through many of these
programs is impatience over the delays in the publication of the Interphone
results. In a Swiss documentary, aired on March 31, Christopher Wild, the new head of
IARC, expresses his concern over the reputation of IARC and says that he looks forward to its completion
"in the coming months." Elisabeth Cardis, the head of Interphone, concedes to that same Swiss TV reporter that Interphone is indeed taking a long
time to finish (see "Interphone Project: The Cracks Begin To Show").
A few days earlier in an unrelated e-mail, Cardis stated that the results would be submitted for publication "in the coming weeks."
In early April, on consecutive nights, two major news magazine shows in Australia, each aired a detailed, hard-hitting report on cancer risks:
"Scientists Speak Out on Mobile Phone, Cancer Link"
by Ticky Fullerton of the Australian Broadcasting Corp.'s Lateline and
"Wake Up Call" by Liam Bartlett of ninemsn's Sixty Minutes. Both
programs include interviews with Rodney Croft, the head of the Australian Centre for Bioeffects Research (ACBR) in Melbourne, who
maintains that there are no cancer risks associated with mobile phones (see also
Cell Phone Link to Tumors? — "We Don't Know"). Here's what Croft told Lateline:
There really has been a lot of research done to date and the research has very clearly shown that there aren't any effects. With children, I really don't think that there is any evidence suggesting that this might be a problem. There isn't anything to suggest that we may have to be a little bit more cautious.A little later, Croft acknowledges that he has himself seen non-thermal effects of GSM radiation in his laboratory:
We've been exploring effects on mobile phones on very subtle changes to brain function. We have been finding reliable changes in a particular frequency of brain activity called the alpha rhythm.When Fullerton follows up and asks, "Why is it such a leap of faith to think that if there's a biological change, that that might not be a health impact?", Croft maintains that the only known effects are thermal and suggests that a piece of wood may present a greater risk to the brain than a cell phone:
I think one of the reasons is that the only known mechanism for interaction is heating. But we must remember that it's also possible that holding a block of wood to your head, which is going to increase the temperature by more than the radiofrequencies, could cause a problem.Bruce Armstrong, an epidemiologist who is coordinating Australia's Interphone group, declined to be interviewed by Lateline. Instead, the program ran clips of his talk at an ACBR conference where he advocated precaution because of the possibility of a tumor risk following long-term use of a mobile phone (see our report). Croft does not agree. "I certainly do not believe that it is as strong as what [Armstrong] would think," he tells Fullerton.
March 9 … Tired of waiting for Interphone? Thanks to Professor Bruce Armstrong,
you can now get a good idea of what the final results will show. A world-class epidemiologist and the head of the Australian Interphone study team based at the University of Sydney,
Armstrong has combined all the available results published to date and, in a 45-minute lecture, reviews and interprets the potential tumor risks.
His meta-analysis includes the as-yet unpublished Australian Interphone data.
In a nutshell, Armstrong finds that there are "suggestions" of an increased risk of brain tumors among long-term users. He advocates a policy
of precaution, especially for children and recommends that RF health research continue. Armstrong's fundamental message is "we don't know" what the cancer risks really are.
This is different from what we've heard in the past. Back in 2000, the Stewart panel in the U.K. also recommended caution,
more out of recognition of our collective ignorance than any hard data. Armstrong is saying there is now a basis to support such concerns. Yes,
the risks are uncertain and ambiguous, but the possibility that using a cell phone could lead to a tumor is no longer hypothetical. The risks may be small or they may be
large, but the possibility is there. Armstrong, an Interphone insider, has changed the conversation.
Download a pdf of this
news and commentMarch 3 … Getting a handle on EMF and RF effects is a frustrating business. A new
paper in the March 9 issue of Mutation Research from Finland's University of Kuopio tells the story.
The Kuopio research group found that mobile phone radiation,
at 5W/Kg, can amplify the DNA damage caused by a chemical mutagen.
This is far from the first time an RF-induced genotoxic effect has been reported (see our
September
3, 2008 post). What's surprising and unexpected is the increased DNA damage was seen only after exposure to continuous wave (CW) radiation, not to pulsed GSM radiation.
Most observers would say that, for the same average SAR, the GSM signal would be more likely to cause biological effects because the intensity of each pulse is greater than the average.
(The empty spaces between the pulses smooth out the peaks and bring the average intensity down.) In some cases, both the CW and the pulsed signal may have the same genotoxic effect, as Henry Lai and N.P. Singh
reported back in 1996. But the Finns found the increased DNA damage only
for the CW, not the GSM, signal. As they note: "[T]his result is not supported by observations from experiments with GSM-modulated RF radiation."
They put the best face on what they found, concluding: "This is not an unusual situation in the literature on biological effects of RF radiation.
Contradictory results are often reported, and different RF signals, cell types, and SAR levels complicate comparison between studies." True, but that can hardly be
the end of the story. There's a lot more to sort out before we understand what's going on.
The Kuopio group includes a nearly exhaustive list of RF-genotox papers. But
two notable papers are missing: those from Hugo Rüdiger's
lab at the University of Vienna. This smacks of historical revisionism. Though some have claimed that a member of Rüdiger's lab engaged in
scientific misconduct and that all the resulting RF-DNA work should be trashed, this is still very much a conjecture and remains far from proven.
February 24 … Tara Parker Pope, who writes the "Well" column in the New York Times, has picked up the
UCSD cancer cluster story in her online blog.
This will likely focus national attention on the cluster and how the university deals with it. (See post immediately below.)
February 23 … The University of California, San Diego (UCSD), campus is in an uproar over a cluster of cancer
cases among those working in the university's Literature Building. Eight women who worked there developed breast cancer between 2000 and 2006, which is
significantly more than would have been expected by chance, according to an analysis by Cedric Garland, a UCSD epidemiologist.
In his June 2008 report to UCSD Chancellor Marye Ann Fox, Garland devotes a lot of attention to the possible role played by EMFs, especially transients from the motors
of the building's elevators. Garland recommends a strategy of "prudent avoidance," which he calls a "special case of the precautionary principle":
The issue of the etiological role of EMF in breast cancer is still not resolved with final scientific certainty, despite decades of research. However, the lack of such certainty should not be a reason to avoid taking moderate measures to minimize needless exposure of workers to power frequency EMF.The cluster is now being investigated by Leeka Kheifets, who has a position at UCLA and is closely associated with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), an arm of the electric utility industry. In fact, Kheifets has spent most of her professional career either directly or indirectly working for EPRI. UCSD appears to have hired Kheifets on the recommendation of Emilie van Deventer of the WHO EMF Project in Geneva. van Deventer neglected to mention the EPRI connection to UCSD. Kheifets's report is expected in a couple of months.
February 13… C.K. Chou is staying
at Motorola after all (see below). A spokesperson for the company told Microwave News that he will serve as chief EME (electromagnetic energy) scientist for
Motorola's Enterprise Mobility Solutions division. "CK
will continue managing matters related to RF based on solid science," she said. Chou will still be based in Plantation, FL.
February 9… Call it the end of an era. Motorola, which has by any
measure been the dominant force in the RF health arena for more than 15 years, is stepping back from the fray. The field will never be quite the same again.
On Friday, February 13, Motorola will close down its RF research lab in Plantation, FL. C.K. Chou, Mark Douglas, Joe Elder, Joe Morrissey and their support staff have all lost their jobs.
A few days later, Ken Joyner, another key player on RF regulatory affairs based in Australia, will leave Motorola after 12 years with the company.
"I don't know who will fill the gap," Morrissey told Microwave News.
The layoffs in the RF group are part of a major restructuring at Motorola in response to plunging sales of its cell phones. In January, Motorola announced that it would cut an additional 4,000 jobs
—3,000 from its handset unit— after axing 3,000 jobs late last year. Last week's financial headlines tell the story:
"Dark Days at Motorola" (Forbes on Tuesday);
"Motorola: Becoming a 'Peripheral Player'"
(Businessweek on Wednesday).
Motorola's management must have decided that the company could no longer afford to lead on RF radiation safety, which it has done since
1993, when cell phones were first accused of causing brain tumors. After David Reynard made his claim in court and on the Larry King Show, the company got
involved on all fronts: Motorola determined what health studies needed to be done and then sponsored them in the U.S. and Europe. In the process, it also
specified how they should be done and by whom. Motorola's staff and allies served on editorial boards of journals, which judged what research was good enough to be published. Motorola
also ran standards committees which translate research results into allowable exposure limits. Mays Swicord, who left the
FDA to become Motorola's head of biological research in 1995, even took over as
the editor of the Bioelectromagnetics Society (BEMS) Newsletter,
allowing him to decide what news and opinions would be presented to the research community. Simply put,
Motorola ran the RF show. (For examples on how the game was played, see
our 2004 report, "Industry Rules RF".)
Here's a snapshot from our coverage of the BEMS annual conference in Long Beach, CA, in 1999 when Motorola's influence was at its peak (see MWN, J/A99, p.5):
Motorola was everywhere. Motorola scientists, engineers, consultants and administrators came to Long Beach from three continents. To keep order, the company sent a lawyer and a PR man. In all, there were about a dozen Motorola staffers at BEMS, not counting those actually doing Motorola-funded research.To its credit, Motorola did fund a broad-based RF research effort in the 1990s, when CTIA, the cell phone trade group, and its main man George Carlo, reneged on a commitment to sponsor $25 million worth of health studies. But its initiative came at a price: Motorola micromanaged the research, which prompted charges that it was less interested in doing science than buying results that would show cell phones are safe. For instance, when Ross Adey, in a large animal study paid for by Motorola, found that cell phone radiation could inhibit brain tumors, Motorola forbade him to speculate about a protective effect. Motorola insisted that the radiation could not have any effects, good or bad, and would not allow one of its contractors to say otherwise (see MWN, J/A96, p.11).
January 23… The new year brought two fresh initiatives to protect children from cell phone radiation.
On January 7, the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) recommended that parents limit their children's use of mobile phones and, on the same day, the French
government announced a series of environmental health proposals which includes a ban on cell phones designed
specifically for children younger than six and of advertising that promotes the use of cell phones among those under 12.
STUK has now joined its counterpart radiation protection agencies in a number of other European countries
—these include Belgium, France, Russia, Sweden and the U.K.— to encourage precautionary policies
for the use of phones by children. Germany's Office of Radiation Protection
(BfS) has also advised that all cell phone users exercise prudence. The U.K. Department of Health was the first to
advise
caution back in 2000 in response to a recommendation from the
Stewart expert panel. The following year, the head of Germany's BfS
advised that, "Parents should keep their children away from this technology as much as possible" (see MWN, J/A01 p.6).
In contrast to all this activity, the lackadaisical approach of the International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) is striking. Some 40 countries, many of which have only
limited expertise in RF radiation health effects, look to the Commission for advice. Yet, ICNIRP has been silent for ten long years.
Three members of ICNIRP are associated with the same radiation protection agencies that have recommended caution, but all three appear to be
sitting on their hands: Rüdiger Matthes, the vice chair of
the commission leads the group on Non-Ionizing Radiation Dosimetry at the BfS; HPA's Richard Saunders was the former head of the Non-Ionizing Radiation Effects Group at the U.K.'s Health Protection
Agency (HPA) and still works at the HPA part-time; and Tony Swerdlow, the chair of HPA's Advisory Group on Non-ionizing Radiation. Clearly neither Saunders nor
Swerdlow is following the lead of Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the HPA, who has reiterated the need for precaution many times over the years,
as he did at last September's Radiation Research Conference.
ICNIRP's Bernard Veyret of the University of Bordeaux seems similarly out of step with France's health department, which, early last
year, recommended that children not use cell phones after its Interphone group pointed to tumor risks among long-term users. More
recently, Lyon, the country's second largest city, launched its own advertising campaign with the
message: "Just Say No to Cell Phones for Children Under 12." Nevertheless, Veyret remains silent.
In October, Finland's Kari Jokela and Sweden's
Maria Feychting, joined the commission. Jokela works at STUK,
while Feychting has close ties to the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority. Swedish radiation protection officials advocated precaution five years before STUK —since 2004 when one
of Feychting's students, Stefan
Lönn, found
that long-term cell phone users had higher rates of acoustic neuroma (see also MWN, October 12, 2004). They have repeated this advice a number of times
since then. Feychting's and Jokela's tenure at ICNIRP has been
too short to hold either accountable for the commission's past inaction; time will tell whether they will push for change.
Some say that ICNIRP should be given some slack because it moves very slowly. ICNIRP's last guidelines on RF exposures were published in 1998. How long could it take to write a
simple statement urging caution? ICNIRP should follow the lead of its sister group in Moscow: the
Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP). The Russians issued a warning
last spring pointing out that the "potential risk for children's health is very high." They closed with some advice that ICNIRP should take to heart:
"It is our professional obligation not to damage the children's health by inactivity."
January 16… Cell phones do not increase the risk of developing eye cancer, at least for the first ten years of use,
according to a group of German researchers led by Andreas Stang at the Martin-Luther-University of
Halle-Wittenberg in Halle. This marks a reversal. Eight years ago, Stang reported a possible association in a smaller and less detailed study (see MWN,
J/F01, p.9).
This new result is "inconsistent" with his first study, Stang writes in the
Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI). That earlier study had only 118 cases
of melanoma of the eye and used a "crude exposure assessment" while the new study has 459 cases, with a "very detailed exposure assessment," Stang adds. A questionnaire developed by the
Interphone study group
was used to assess mobile phone use. The JNCI paper was posted on the journal's Web site on January 13 and will appear in its January 21 issue.
Most other epidemiological studies have not found cancer risks after less than ten years of mobile phone use, though there are indications that longer and more intense cell phone use
might lead to a higher incidence of glioma, acoustic neuroma and parotid gland tumors.
Stang declined to offer an opinion about possible long-term melanoma risks. "It would only be wild speculation," he told Microwave News. But, he added,
"As long as we do not have empirical data it would be wise to be cautionary." Stang and Karl-Henz Jöckel, his colleague and coauthor, believe that "we should be especially careful with children."
Peter Inskip, an epidemiologist at the National Cancer Institute, agreed that the risks from ten or more years of cell phone use are still open.
But, in an interview, Inskip noted that: "I know of no reason to expect there to be an elevated risk for longer observation periods" [his emphasis].
In a commentary that accompanied Stang's 2001 paper, Inskip argued
for a "cautious interpretation" of the melanoma risk. Inskip cited the small size of Stang's study, the rough exposure assessment as well as lack of attention to possible confounders. When
asked about Stang's new finding, Inskip stated that he appreciated having "stronger information" in the published literature.
A year after Stang's first paper, Danish-U.S. researchers led by Chrisofer Johansen of the Danish Cancer Society and John Boice of the
International Epidemiology Institute reported that they could not find any support for an elevated risk of malignant melanoma of the eye among Danish mobile phone users.
The new paper may be downloaded at no cost.
Stang explained that he and Jöckel had paid the journal's fee to allow open access:
"We wanted to be sure that everybody in the world has the chance to read the paper."