|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* Mobile Phones and Brain Tumors: Public Remains Underinformed / Second report may influence health lawsuit (18/9/02) Tramès per Mobile Phones and Brain Tumors: Public Remains Underinformed A Sept. 11, 2002, Associated Press (AP)
article by Gretchen Parker entitled, “Study
linking brain tumors and older cell phones could be used against Motorola,”
lays out arguments pro and con about the recently published brain tumor
study of Swedish oncologist and epidemiologist Lennart Hardell1. Dr. Hardell
is an expert witness for the plaintiff in the Newman cell phone brain
tumor case currently before What is the public to believe? Does the popular media take the time to analyze the details of research reports so the public can assess the facts upon which the industry arguments are based? If not, how else will the public be able to make an informed choice, for themselves and for their children, about how often and how long to use their cell phones? “The response of The EMR Network,” said
President Janet Newton, “ is to point the public to in-depth information
on the debate in the research community about human exposure to radiofrequency
radiation (RFR). This debate has resulted in challenges to the adequacy
of current regulations governing the public's exposure to RFR from mobile
phones and their base stations.” (See: The AP article mentions three major studies [Inskip 20012, Johansen 20013, and Muscat 20004] published since December 2000 that, according to Ms. Parker, “showed cell phones don't cause any adverse health effects.” These happen to be the same studies the Motorola defence team has submitted in evidence to counter the Hardell study. AP’s broad statement asserting the lack of any adverse health effects is a common example of overly simplified reporting that can lead the public astray. The studies in question covered only brain tumors and cancer. No three studies could ever purport to demonstrate the absence of all adverse health effects. Louis Slesin, Ph.D., publisher of Microwave News: A Report on Non-Ionizing Radiation (See: www.microwavenews.com) points out that Hardell’s study examines long-term exposure to mobile phone radiation while most of the subjects in the three other studies were short-term mobile phone users. Given the large and ever-increasing numbers of cell phone users and the resulting potential public health implications, it is imperative that reporters and journalists accurately relay the details of research to the public. Research studies can take years to accomplish.
Protocols must be designed and carried out, data analyzed, reports written
and then submitted for publication and peer review. In the meantime
the public continues to buy and use untested wireless communications products
that, were they drugs or medical treatments, would not be allowed on the
market until proven “safe and effective.” Research on pulsed or To be adequately informed, wireless consumers must read past the headlines, and the popular media must do its “due diligence” and dig beyond the press release and summary for each new study as it is published. See following pages for more detail: MOBILE PHONES AND BRAIN TUMORS POPULAR MEDIA vs. RESEARCH LITERATURE A Sept. 11, 2002, article reported in popular media outlets including print, broadcast, and internet highlighted again how the public remains consistently under-informed on the question of adverse health effects from cell phone radiation. The Associated Press article by Gretchen
Parker entitled, “Study linking brain tumors and older cell phones could
be used against Motorola,” lays out the arguments pro and con about the
recently published brain tumor study of Swedish oncologist and epidemiologist
Lennart Hardell.1 Dr. Hardell is an expert The law firm of Peter Angelos, counsel for the plaintiff Christopher Newman, wants this study included in evidence and contends that, “from a public health perspective, the court should just be aware of what's out there.” Motorola has asked Judge Blake to dismiss the Hardell study. Its spokesperson, Norman Sandler, is quoted as questioning Hardell’s methods and theory. It is reported that he doubts that people who used the phones as much as ten years ago can recall at which side of their heads they held their phone. What is the public to believe? Does the popular media take enough time to analyze the details of research reports so that the public can understand the facts upon which these opposing arguments are based? In the AP article, mention is made of three major studies [Inskip 20012, Johansen 20013, and Muscat 20004] published since December 2000 that, “showed cell phones don't cause any adverse health effects. These happen to be some of the studies the Motorola team submitted in evidence to counter the Hardell study. This broad statement asserting the lack of any adverse health effects is a common example of how the public can be led astray. A reading of those three reports will first point out that each one studied only brain tumors and/or cancer. No three studies could ever purport to demonstrate the absence of all adverse health effects. How can the public evaluate the different outcomes in these studies? Inquisitive and energetic media are called for. Given the large and ever-increasing numbers of cell phone users and the potential public health implications down the road, it is imperative that reporters and journalists relay the details of the research to the public. How else will the public make an informed choice, for themselves and for their children, about how often and how long to use their cell phones? When reading the actual studies, one finds
that the three earlier studies look at significantly smaller groups of
cell phone users and/or users who have used their phones for significantly
shorter periods of time in comparison to the Hardell study subjects.
This information is found in the reports themselves and well as A reading of the complete Hardell study demonstrates the same trend. For the overall use of analogue cell phones, there was a 30% greater risk of developing a brain tumor compared to a person who did not use a cell phone. For subjects who used analogue cell phones for 10 years or more, the risk increased to almost 80 per cent. Hardell also looked at digital cell phone users and cordless phones users. Both of those groups had shorter exposures and showed a lower probability of brain tumor development. Hardell notes that in Sweden the analogue cell phone system started in 1986, analogue cordless phones started in 1988, but now digital cordless phones are available, and digital cell phones came along in 1991. In the “Discussion” portion of the study Hardell notes: Furthermore, digital cellular phones have not been in use for as long as the analogue ones, which would be of importance for carcinogenesis. This was exemplified in our study with median time of use (tumor induction period) of 7 years for analogue phones, 3 years for digital phones, and 5 years for cordless phone. Hardell’s method of collecting the exposure data has been criticized for the amount of direct conversation with subjects to acquire the information, i.e., that questions asked by a live researcher can “lead” the subjects to an answer they would not have given on a written questionnaire. The “Materials and Methods” section notes that a written protocol was used for phone interviews so that all subjects were asked the same questions. Subjects were called when there were discrepancies in the exposure information. For example, if the subject indicated that his phone use began in a year before which his listed model of phone was on the market, a call was made to determine which part of that information which was in error. Of the 2561 tumor subjects chosen from the cancer registry, 1617 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The subjects had to be alive so that family members were not relied on to give the exposure information. Subjects that started their mobile phone use within one year prior to diagnosis of a tumor were considered unexposed, i.e., the tumor had to have been from another cause. Of these 1617 tumor subjects, 1429 answered the questionnaire. Of the 1617 controls chosen (people from the general population register) 1470 answered the questionnaires. Subjects were matched for age (within 5 years), geographic location, and sex. The results were based on 1303 complete pairs. A Finnish epidemiological study of brain
tumor and salivary gland cancers among mobile phone users was also published
early in 20025. The study was based on exposure assessment found
in 1996 cellular phone company records. The point of the study was
to evaluate this source/method of compiling the exposure data. The results
showed that cellular phone use was not associated with brain tumors or One might expect that these results would lead to a conclusion in this study that cell phones “don't cause cancer.” However, the point of the study was to evaluate how reliable the exposure data would prove to be. The conclusion states: A register-based approach has limited value in risk assessment of cellular phone use owing to lack of information on exposure. Why was this conclusion reached? Again, one must look to the “Discussion” section of the study: A register-based approach avoids recall bias, as well as selection bias related to nonresponse. However, we are not able to verify that the actual user of the cellular phone was the subscriber or someone else (such as a family member). In a study conducted in the United States, the cellular phone subscriber was the primary phone user in 69% of subscriptions and was the sole user in 48%. We also had no information on the frequency or duration of calls, or on cellular phones provided by companies to their employees. Before 1996, there were more corporate than private subscriptions in Finland, and therefore more that half of all cellular phone users could have been classified as non-users in this study. It is important to point out that while long-term exposure to cell phones is beginning to be examined with the Hardell study, very little research exists on long-term exposure to cell phone base station radiation exposures. The cell phone user can choose the duration of his exposure to his own phone. Neighbours of base station antennas cannot “hang up” on their radiation exposures. The vast majority of the public relies
on the popular media to inform it on scientific and medical developments
relating to their everyday lives. This puts a significant burden
on the popular media to their homework and to refrain from making broad
generalizations about health and safety risks that are not supported by
the scientific literature Message by Janet Newton, President of the EMR Network Next item: Second report may influence health lawsuit by JEFFREY SILVA WASHINGTON-The Baltimore federal judge overseeing an $800 million cancer lawsuit against the wireless industry was alerted by plaintiffs just days ago that its lead scientific witness will have a second paper published early next month linking analog cell-phone use to the same type of malignant brain tumor as that of the 42-year-old neurologist who brought the case against the nation's top carriers and manufacturers two years ago. The development could make it difficult for U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake to keep the landmark case from going to trial. It is the second major scientific paper in less than three months by Sweden's Lennart Hardell to find an association between mobile phones and brain tumors. Blake is expected to rule shortly on whether testimony of Hardell and other plaintiff experts is admissible under a standard set in the 1993 Supreme Court ruling Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. The Daubert finding is key to whether the case goes to trial or gets dismissed. [PARA] In the August issue of the European Journal of Cancer Prevention, Hardell found a 30-percent increased risk of benign tumors among cell-phone users. Those findings are just now being picked up by major media. In an Aug. 21 letter to Blake, industry defense lawyers argued Hardell's data in that paper carries little weight because the plaintiff-Christopher Newman-has a malignant tumor known as an astrocytoma. “The publication of Dr. Hardell's study fails to cure any of the numerous flaws rendering his causation opinion inadmissible in this action,” stated the lawyers. But there is a second Hardell paper that has yet to make it into the public arena. It will shortly. The October issue of the International Journal of Radiation Biology will include more Hardell epidemiology results that-when combined with the August paper-may well send the Newman case to trial. The paper-“Use of cellular telephones and the risk for astrocytoma”-found a statistically significant increased risk for malignant brain tumors among cell-phone users. The risk was even greater for astrocytoma-Newman's brain cancer-on the side of head used by subscribers to make and receive cell-phone calls. The data is drawn from what is touted as the largest case-control epidemiology study in the world. During last February's Daubert hearing, industry lawyers attacked the methodology and results of that study. Newman is represented by the law firm of trial attorney and Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos. Angelos has made hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments against asbestos and tobacco makers. The Angelos firm notified Blake on Sept. 6 that Hardell's newest paper on cell-phone use and astrocytomas will appear in the Oct. 2 issue of the International Journal of Radiation Biology. “Peer reviewed scientific papers show an increased risk for developing brain tumors for those who have used analog cellular telephones. Additionally, there is increasing evidence of biological mechanisms that explain how the tumors are initiated and/or promoted resulting in the increased risk reported in these studies,” H. Russell Smouse, an Angelos firm lawyer, told the court in the Sept. 6 letter. A fierce debate has erupted in industry and government circles over whether mobile-phone radiation can roduce non-thermal biological effects that could harm cellular users. There are 140 million mobile-phone subscribers in the United States. RCR Wireless News learned last week that a third Hardell paper-expanding on previous research linking cell-phone use to increased risk of acoustic neurinoma (a benign ear tumor) has been accepted for publication in the scientific journal Neuroepidemiology. None of the handful of cancer lawsuits against industry have made it to trial since the brain cancer controversy first surfaced in a Florida lawsuit in the early 1990s. Wall Street, which has grown bearish on the wireless industry in the face of sluggish subscriber growth, is watching the case closely. There are 10 additional brain cancer lawsuits pending against the wireless industry in Blake's court and dozens more waiting in the wings. Joanne Suder, the Baltimore lawyer who originally filed the Newman action and who now represents clients in six other tumor cases before Blake, said cancer victims deserve to have their cases heard while they are still alive. “It would be a tragedy and an injustice if these people don't get their day in court. There are literally scores of other individuals waiting to file a lawsuit, and they want their day in court too,” said Suder. Quelle/Informant/in/Source:
Roy Beavers, USA |
|
|
| Citizens'
Initiative Omega http://www.grn.es/electropolucio/00omega.htm If you want our (normally daily) Newsletter in German, sometimes partially in English, please go to http://www.hohle-erde.de/body_home.html#bio Note: Citizens' Initiative Omega
works on non-profit base. Our messages are the result of many hours of
daily research, roundup and editing. If you would like to support our
activity for people around the world with a donation or an aid fund unique
or on regular base, you can do it here https://www.paypal.com/xclick/business=Star.Mail%40t-online.de&return=http%3A//www.grn.es/electropolucio/00omega.htm&no_note=1&tax=0¤cy_code=USD |
|
|