Betreff: The results of the "Independent" research by the Mobile Phone Industry
Von: Robert Riedlinger
Datum: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:40:05 -0800

I find that corporate funding is not the only studies we cannot trust.Government funded studies  are just as likely to biased since they haul in many hundreds of millions each year,from wireless enterprises.We have a prime example here in Canada of friendly scientists.Its enough to make one SICK.

Regards Robert

Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2006 6:14 PM
Subject: The results of the "Independent" research by the Mobile Phone Industry

Hi all.

My son Henrik (mast-victims webmaster) found this piece on the Swedish site.


But please read it yourselves:


"Source of Funding and Results of Studies of Health Effects of Mobile Phone

Use: Systematic Review of Experimental Studies"


The study is published in Sept. 2006 og 2 of the writers (Anke Huss & Martin Röösli)

were involved in the Swiss replica study (publ. 06.06.2006).


They conclude:


We examined the methodological quality and results of experimental studies

investigating the effects of the type of radiofrequency radiation emitted by

handheld cellular telephones. We hypothesized that studies would be less

likely to show an effect of the exposure if funded by the telecommunications

industry, which has a vested interest to portray the use of mobile phones as

safe. We found that the studies exclusively funded by industry were indeed

substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a

range of endpoints that may be relevant to health.


Best regards.


Von: "Robert Riedlinger"
Datum: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 17:44:43 -0800
An: "Milt Bowling"

Cellphones and cancer
Broadcast: Nov 25, 2003

Controversy at IARC

A few years ago, there was a flap over something called DEHP. It’s found in IV bags, blood bags and tubing of all kinds. DEHP makes plastic soft, pliable and strong. It was found to cause problems in rats, including infertility.

After a full review, IARC decided to downgrade the risk of cancer from DEHP. That opened the door for more widespread use.

For Lorenzo Tomatis, the downgrading of DEHP was a clear sign IARC had
Lorenzo Tomatis
let industry get too close to the science. He and 30 other scientists from around the world decided to go public with their fears saying that allowing industry representatives to take part in IARC's decisions about what is cancerous "compromises public health" and that scientific papers showing a possible link to cancer had been "ignored or intentionally supressed."

"If you delete a suspicion of a risk," Tomatis said, "you give full green light and that may create a special danger for the public."

Paul Kleihues took over from Tomatis as head of IARC. He says these critics always see industry as the enemy of public health.

"If they don't have scientific reasons they suggest a conflict of interest of industry or participants that have a vested interest. We do not believe that any of our recent decisions was ultimately influenced by industry."

Kleihues rejected the accusation and then barred Lorenzo Tomatis from ever re-entering the building.

"He told me I was persona non grata and had me escorted out by two witnesses from the building saying I was not allowed to come back…I think even Saddam Hussein could go back into IARC but not me. I found it totally absurd because it was a disagreement on the interpretation of scientific data."

"We did not ban him because of a scientific disagreement," Peter Kleihues
Peter Kleiheus
said. "What is not acceptable is that he questions our integrity, our striving for scientific truth. If scientific truth is no longer our guiding principle, we’d better close this whole place down."

What does this squabbling mean for the cellphone study and for those of us who use a cellphone? The critics are accusing IARC of not trying hard enough to keep industry money and influence away from the science. Marketplace wondered whether industry money could be influencing IARC's study on cellphones, especially in Canada.

Calling Canada

Dan Krewski, of the Mclaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa, is one of Canada's lead scientists for the IARC study.

"This’ll be the largest study of brain cancer ever conducted and will give us the opportunity to really look in detail for small risks with cellular technology."

Krewski has about a million dollars to fund his part of the IARC research.
Dan Krewski
Most of it came from the Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association — the cellphone industry lobby group.

"We originally approached the CWTA through Roger Poirier who at the time was president and CEO of the organization."

Poirier's the man who said studies into the cellphones and cancer risks showed “…no adverse health effects…”

The current head of the association is Peter Barnes. He says the million dollars his lobby group is giving to Krewski's centre has no strings attached.

"I mean we basically sign a cheque every year for five years, we committed to that, and apart from knowing that the money is being used for the research that’s the extent of our involvement."

IARC told Marketplace that Canada is the only one of 13 countries in the study to receive funding directly from the cellphone industry.

Marketplace's research found that the CWTA and its members invested $1 million to help establish the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa — where Dan Krewski is doing his cellphone research.

Krewski's centre gets the cheques directly from the CWTA. But to get the relationship stamped officially "arm's length," he had to get the deal reviewed by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, which also threw in $220,000 of government money.

According to IARC guidelines, this funding has to be indirect - so it went through the CIHR. That makes the funding not directly connected to the industry.

The study is not Krewski's only link to the cellphone industry. If you search the web for information about cellphones, you might come across the Wireless Information Resource Centre — paid for by the CWTA.

Krewski chairs the Wireless Information Resource Centre's scientific advisory group. Roger Poirier — former head of the CWTA — administers the web site. Another link between the cellphone scientist and the cellphone lobby: Poirier — the man who negotiated the million dollar deal — is a paid consultant on the big cellphone study for IARC.

When we reached Poirier by phone, he told us his involvement with the cellphone study is minor and purely technical. He didn't want to talk to us on camera.

Krewski described Poirier's involvment as "a liason."

"He puts us in contact with the right people when we need info on technical aspects of cell phones for the WHO study…He doesn't see scientific results, he does not participate in scientific meetings."

A chart we produce for Krewski shows the same names and links popping up frequently.

"I can see how you could get that sort of perception there may be something leading to some sort of complications here, but if you actually look at the roles of the organizations and agencies that you’ve got on your chart and what they’re actually doing, the industry, clearly, both in Canada and internationally, is hands off," Krewski says.

But it wasn't that clear in Europe. The scientists at IARC say the European cellphone industry did try to negotiate more influence over that end of the study.

"So we wanted not only to avoid any bias, but we didn't want to get any involvement with an industry which then doesn't like the results and tries all kinds of things," IARC's Peter Kleihues said.

Kleihues told us industry reps came knocking as the negotiations on the study were happening.

"They wanted to give us the money. They said 'enlarge, do more, you will be happy because we are so much interested, we are under pressure, we would like a bigger and better study,' and we said 'no, it’s not possible, we can’t accept the money.'"

"Yeah, basically we refused until a contract was drawn up that ensured we had no strings attached," research scientist Elisabeth Cardis said.

That means there is still industry funding in Europe, but the money is administered by a third party. In Canada, the industry money goes to Dan Krewski's centre.

"We are trying very hard through various mechanisms to make sure that everything is going well in the countries to review…to see what mechanisms have been set up. We have been preparing declarations of interest for example, we’ve been documenting sources. We’re getting copies of all the contracts. If we feel that any centre has a potential conflict of interest, that centre’s not going to be included in the international analysis," Cardis said.

Cardis adds the connections involved with the Canadian part of the study don't seem to be a conflict of interest to her. But her boss — IARC chief Paul Kleihues — does seem concerned about our findings.

"Well, I think this is a reason for concern. Industry doesn't give you a free lunch usually. That means industry expects something back for any money they do, and I think we must look into this. It's a matter of concern and we must find out if it's sufficient reason to exclude that branch of the study or not."

Kleihues goes on to say that as far as he can see, the Canadian part of the study appears to have been set up carefully, to follow the rules.

As we kept digging, we discovered that not only does the Canadian cellphone lobby pay for a chunk of Krewski's research at the University of Ottawa, it also has an impact on his salary. We learned that the CWTA money unleashes government money that goes towards Krewski's salary. Krewski says these arrangements are all above board.

The head of IARC - Paul Kleihues told us he was reviewing for possible conflicts of interest the contracts people like Krewski had signed. He said no decisions or changes would be made until an IARC meeting in mid-December.

As for the study itself — it won't be complete for a couple of years. So get ready for another long wait before we get any definitive answer on that old riddle over cellphones and cancer.

All cellphones in Canada meet the basic radiation safety guidelines. But anyone concerned about exposure can take a couple of steps to limit it:

Terms of Use | Privacy | Copyright | Other Policies
Copyright © CBC 2003

Von: "Robert Riedlinger"
Datum: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 12:49:11 -0700

Home: CBC.caRadioTelevisionLocal Become a member Sign in

03:54 PM EST Feb 01


Health And Science
Contact Us
About CBC

Daily News Digests
News Alerts

Radio-Canada - French

Can cellphone use lead to cancer?
Broadcast: November 25, 2003
<<main page

Twelve million Canadians use cellphones — and that number is growing by the day. So many people use cellphones that you would have thought the fears about cellphones and brain tumours had disappeared.

But — quietly — a huge international agency has been gathering evidence, trying to answer the question: can cellphone use lead to cancer?

A decade ago, there was a lot of buzz that the radiation from cellphones can lead to cancer. A Florida man went to court, arguing that his wife's brain cancer was the result of prolonged use of cellular phones.

A number of studies had been conducted — some said there was a link, others found no connection.

Health Canada decided there is no conclusive evidence of a health risk from cellphones. In the U.S., a much bigger project is underway.

In 1997, scientist George Carlo headed up the Wireless Technology
George Carlo
Research group in Washington. He had spent $28 million U.S. over six years. But because his research group was funded entirely by members of the cellphone industry, it's dismissed as a big public relations job.

Carlo insists there is no proof of a health risk, supporting what becomes sort of a message track from the cellphone industry — from people like Roger Porier of the cellphone lobby.

"The overwhelming evidence from the scientific community — these are the top people in the world who are investigating these things — conclude time after time there are no adverse health effects in fields of this nature."

But Carlo, who was once the cellphone industry's hired gun, has morphed into one of the industry's biggest critics. Carlo's afraid there is a possible health threat. He thinks we should be told.

What's changed?

Carlo says the scientific research the cellphone industry paid him to oversee, turned up some problems.

"Is it absolute definitive proof? No, does it raise red flags of concern among public health people? Absolutely."

Carlo says research on rats found cellphone use could lead to genetic damage, which some argue, could lead to cancer. He says another small study on humans showed an increased tendency of tumours among cellphone users.

Carlo reported his findings to the industry and recommended it warn the public.

"When they found that we had findings of genetic damage and increasing risk of cancer they cut off our money completely."

Carlo's studies were shelved — and so was he. He's now trying to apply a little scientific research to the game of golf.

"Those of us who are no longer auditioning for future funding can be a lot more outspoken than folks worried about the next grant coming down the line."

But Carlo does have a tell-all book for sale. He's sold the rights to Hollywood. In the book, he accuses the cellphone industry of major spinning — of downplaying the science it doesn't like and supporting research it does like. People end up, Carlo says, thinking cellphones are all right.

Emphasizing the positive is a lobbyist's job, but Carlo says the cellphone industry has been doing a lot more than that. He says it's been lobbying prestigious scientific bodies to do a study that will make fears about cellphones and cancer go away. And what could be more prestigious than an agency of the United Nations and the World Health Organization?

International Agency for Research on Cancer

For almost forty years, we've relied on the International Agency for Research on Cancer to help us live our lives. The Lyons, France based agency tells us what causes cancer — so it affects what we eat and drink, how we work and how we build our homes.

We go to meet the people who put the labels on everything from saccharine to asbestos to second hand smoke. When you hear something labelled possibly or probably carcinogenic, odds are it got the label from IARC. Now IARC is looking at cellphones.

For the past six years, scientist Elisabeth Cardis has been overseeing the IARC cellphone study.

"What we have tried to set up is a study in which we gave ourselves all of
Elizabeth Cardis
the chances to find an effect, if it exists," Cardis said. "The risk of cancer is not very high at the individual level, but if you multiply by a billion users around the world, that could mean hundreds or thousands of cancers around the world…so it’s obviously important to determine whether there’s a risk and how big that risk is."

The IARC study is looking at more than 5,000 cellphone users with brain tumors in 13 countries, including Canada. It's looking to see if they used their cellphones differently than the rest of us. This type of epidemiological study has been done several times before but has always been criticized — either as not long term enough or not speficic enough to find any conclusive link to cancer. Cardis says this study will be different.

"We have designed a study which going to overcome a lot of these limitations."

But George Carlo says the design of the IARC study is sure to make the cellphone industry happy.

"The cellphone industry thinks this study is the last nail in the coffin,"Carlo said. "They’re going to say that this is the biggest study that’s ever been done in a dozen different countries, all the top scientists, and the findings are going to come out and say that everything is fine for consumers."

Carlo says the study itself is flawed because it will be biased toward finding nothing.

"We don’t want to be saying these scientists are corrupt because they’re not. But they have limited data and they make limited interpretation that they have limited data. The sum total of that is that consumers believe they are being taken care of when in fact they are not."

Keeping science clear of the kind of industry influence George Carlo talks about has always been a concern at IARC. Lorenzo Tomatis saw it during his 23 years there — 12 as the agency's director.

"It's always been on a razor blade, it was always difficult to be completely independent."

But now Tomatis criticizes IARC for being too open to industry pressure.

"Perhaps there is less attention on the side of IARC in checking the influence that comes from outside."

Tomatis' concern about IARC's independence stems from its recent ruling on another controversy.

Controversy at IARC >>

Jobs | Contact Us | Help | RSS
Terms of Use | Privacy | Copyright | Other Policies
Copyright © CBC 2005
CBC News: Marketplace




CBC News Indepth: Cellphone Safety

Major worldwide cellphone study created (December 13, 2002)

Older cellphones linked to brain tumours: study (September 11, 2002)

Cellphones don't cause cancer: Danish study (February 6, 2001)

Cellphones won't give you cancer: study (December 20, 2000)


CBC does not endorse and is not responsible for the content of external sites. Links will open in new window.

Rogers Wireless


Telus Mobility

Bell Mobility

Cellphone Safety:

New England Journal of Medicine: U of T study

AAA distraction study

Canada Safety Council

Cell phone etiquette from

Health Canada - Safety Code 6

Federal Communications Commission - RF Safety Program

FCC ID Search Site - look up your phone's SAR rating

Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones UK organization

SAR Data - lists SAR numbers for most phones

US Food and Drug Administration site on cell phone safety

World Health Organization site on Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields

Print this page

Send a comment
Watch Marketplace Sunday evenings at 7:00 p.m. on CBC Television. Repeated Saturdays on Newsworld at 3:00 p.m. (ET) and Sundays at 5:00 a.m. (ET). Check local listings for details.
  • Got a complaint?
  • Shopaholic?
    Do you want to:
  • comment on a story?
  • rant?
  • submit a story idea?