July 30, 2010. 60 antennas stand in villages and towns near Rome

A court-ordered study has found that electromagnetic waves beamed by Vatican Radio leave residents living near the station’s antennas at a higher risk of cancer. Italy’s most prestigious cancer research hospital, now admits that there is a connection between radio and microwave radiation and the cancer incidents.

The new 300-page research report, by a team at Milan’s National Tumor Institute led by Andrea Micheli, supports the claim of Cesano residents: Children living at a distance of 12 km or less from the antennas have a higher chance of dying from leukemia or lymphoma.

The researchers also said that a court prevented her colleagues from making the report available to media and they also could not discuss its content. According to magistrates, the report justifies the current investigation of six officials of Vatican Radio for manslaughter.

The report states:

“There has been an important, coherent and meaningful correlation between exposure to Vatican Radio’s structures and the risk of leukaemia and lymphoma in children.”  The report also stated that there were risks of dying form cancer for people who had resided at least 10 years within a nine-kilometre (5.5-mile) radius of the radio’s giant antenna towers near Cesano, some 20 kilometres north of Rome.

The radio’s director, Federico Lombardi, disputed the report, saying: “Vatican Radio is astonished to hear the news on the results of the study.” Lombardi, who is also the Vatican spokesman, added: “Vatican Radio has always observed international directives on electromagnetic emissions and since 2001 has observed more restrictive norms set by Italy to allay the concerns of the neighbouring populations.”

Speaking on Vatican Radio, he said: “According to international scientific literature on the matter, the existence of a causal link like the one apparently hypothesised by the report had never been established.”

Herein lies the problem – The World Health Organization and other governing bodies that regulate wireless communication technologies have set safety standards based upon the heating of skin tissue – not upon the magnetic fields these waves have on the cell inside our bodies.  ”It if does not heat you it does not hurt you” we are told.   Now, we are informed by cancer specialists that more children are getting leukaemia within 5 miles of the towers. The population living right beside the towers are showing symptoms of Radio Wave Illness. More people are dying from cancer.  How much more proof do we need?  These are world renown scientists from prestigious cancer institutions.

A Rome judge ordered the report in 2005 as part of an investigation into a complaint filed in 2001 by Cesano residents who alleged health hazards posed by the electromagnetic waves. A 2001 investigation by Italy’s environment ministry showed that magnetic fields in the area were six times more powerful than allowed, while Rome’s Lazio region estimated that the rate of deaths from leukaemia among children in the Cesano area was three times higher than in adjoining areas.

The Vatican now believes that the government of Italy is to blame for allowing builders to purchase land adjacent to the towers to create towns and villages. The limits may be too high right beside the towers, but the reason that the towers were constructed in a remote area is so that the towers would have no effect on the populations of large cities such as Rome.  If this is the case, and that everyone in the wireless industry knows there is a problem, why does every government in the world allow cell phone communication towers to be placed on the rooftops of apartment buildings?  Right under the roof of people 24 hours a day?

The History of Vatican Radio

Guglielmo Marconi, the first to broadcast radio across the Atlantic ocean, came to the Vatican in 1931 and kissed the popes ring. By February 12th of that year Pope Pius XI inaugurated the airwaves of Vatican Radio. Marconi was an Italian catholic, and Pius was originally from Milan.  The idea originated with the Dir. General of Communications for Vatican City, Giuseppe Gianfranceschi who drew up plans for a wireless station in the Vatican that year.

Signals from two medium-wave transmitters reach all of Italy at all times, and 27 shortwave antennas are beamed at selected parts of the world in different languages at varying times. All papal speeches, news programs, and religious events are dispatched in 34 languages to all the corners of the world. To the Vatican, it’s as important as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe were to the United States at the height of the Cold War.

To the inhabitants of Cesano and neighboring communities, the antennas, some transmitting at 600 kilowatts, its something of a nuisance and more —some people are hearing the Pope’s voice picked up by their front-door intercom……a warning of a possible death sentence from Vatican Radio radiation.

July 26, 2010.  Cancer Mortality near Air Force Bases.

Lester, J.R. and D.F. Moore.  1982.  Cancer Mortality and Air Force Bases.  Journal of Bioelectricity 1(1): 72-82.

Abstract:

Nationally, counties with an Air Force Base were found to have significantly higher incidences of cancer mortality during 1950-1969 compared to counties without an Air Force Base.

RESULTS

This study is based on 92 active Air Force bases that were in operation during 1950-1969 in the United States. The authors hypothesize that the chronic low intensity microwave exposure to peak pulse patterns, characteristic of radar, could influence immunocompetence and account for the high cancer mortality near air bases. They cite a 1979 study by Meecham and Shaw that documents a 20% higher mortality rate for residents within 2 to 3 miles of the Los Angeles International Airport compared to a neighborhood 8 to 9 miles away.  In addition to cancers a higher incidence of birth defects and nervous breakdowns, among residents who live near airports, was reported in Japan and Great Britain.

COMMENTS

This study brings to mind, PAVE PAWS, the US Air Force Radar Base that was installed in 1979 and was the focus of several cancer cluster studies in Cape Code, including an elevated rate of Ewing’s Sarcoma (a malignant tumor often found in bone with a peak occurrence between 10 and 20 years of age). According to the National Academies’ National Research Council report in 2005 and the Massachusetts Department of Health report in 2007 the radiation was unlikely to have played a primary role in the incidence of the various cancers and health effects.

However, based on Air Force measurements outside the security fence, values for average and maximum power density  (attachment 4) are well above the Russian guidelines of 10 microW/cm2 with “corrected average” values ranging from 10 to 230 microW/cm2.

THEN VS. NOW

The 1982 study by Lester  (PhD) and Moore (MD) was based on the period 1950 to 1969.  Airports and air force bases have changed dramatically since that period with many more transmitters and frequencies.

The good news is that few homes are built near large international airports. The bad news is that those who work at an airport (or an air force base) and those who work near airports, like hotel employees, are exposed to radar.  I stayed at an hotel that was several kilometers away from the Toronto International Airport and I was still able to measure the airport radar in my hotel room.  At that hotel employees said that their customers had difficult sleeping but they attributed this to noise from car traffic.

Jerry Straub recently wrote, ”When I first started flying, in the 1950′s, they still had aircraft radios which were tuned by a hand-crank or knob (analog device).  As electronic technology has progressed, aircraft radios have become magnificent solid state devices with virtually unlimited ability to control frequencies and discriminate between them.”

Then airports had two frequencies; (control) tower and ground (control). Here’s the URL for the current airport information for Detroit Metro (DTW): http://www.airnav.com/airport/KDTW (see table below).

There are about 37 frequencies in use at DTW for communication, plus another 9 locally  for navigation. This does not include the frequencies used for instrument approaches for each runway.

If cancer rates near air force bases and airports were elevated prior to the 1980s, I wonder what they are today and how is this radiation affecting those on board aircrafts, especially the crew?

RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION ON AIRPLANES

A few years ago I was returning from the US and, while the plane was loading, I asked the pilot and co-pilot if they knew what levels of radiation they were exposed to in the cockpit.  The co-pilot frowned and told me that the airline industry monitored the levels a few years earlier but they were never provided with the results, which wasn’t good news.   Wonder what happened to that study?

On that flight I gave the pilot my RF meter and he did measurements in the cockpit during the flight. The values were below FCC guidelines but were well above Russian levels of 10 micoW/cm2.   I measured the levels of radiation in the cabin during flight and found they decreased from the front to the rear of the plane. The highest reading I measured was around 35 microW/cm2.

MAGNETIC FIELDS ON AIRPLANES

A few years ago I measured low frequency magnetic fields on an airplane. Instead of 50 or 60 Hz, airplanes operate at 400 Hz.  The lowest levels of magnetic fields were at the rear of the plane (around 3 to 5 mG) and the highest readings were in first class (around 20 to 30 mG).

On this particular flight (it was prior to 911) I was allowed  into the cockpit and measured the magnetic fields while the plane was in flight. High readings (over 100 milliGauss) came from conduits that carried the electrical wires behind the pilot and co-pilot.  The magnetic field near the window was also high (over 100 mG) and I was told that the window was heated to keep it flexible. When the pilot turned off the heating element the magnetic field dropped sharply.

The pilot thought for a moment and said that many of his colleagues, who had retired at age 55, developed cancer and didn’t live long after retirement.

According to the scientific literature, levels of 2 to 4 mG for residential exposure have been associated with increased incidence of childhood leukemia; levels of 2 to 12 mG have been associated with breast cancer, brain tumors and adult leukemia from occupational exposure; and levels of 16 mG with miscarriages during the first trimester.

WIFI ON AIRPLANES AND AT AIRPORTS

The most recent change on airplanes is the introduction of WiFi.  A friend who recently flew on a commercial flight with WiFi complained of feeling unwell.

Flying is a dangerous business and it is become more dangerous with all of this additional exposure to radiation at the airport and on the aircraft. Wonder how long it will take for the airline industry to recognize that the lower the levels of radiation the safer the flight for the crew and passengers alike?

May 20, 2010.  The recent article, “Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use:  results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study” that appeared in the International Journal of Epidemiology on May 18, 2010, (2010:1-20) clearly demonstrates the flaws with the way we fund, conduct, review and report on science that deals with products that fetch billions of dollars and place at risk, at least potentially, billions of lives.

Click HERE to view the study in PDF

The INTERPHONE study, the largest (5,117 brain tumor cases) and most expensive ($25 million dollars) study on cell phones and brain tumors, involving scientists from 13 countries, was flawed from the very beginning. Whoever designed the protocol did it in such a way as to minimize finding any adverse effects.  Despite this, adverse effects were reported — a 40% increased risk of glioma (a type of brain tumor that affects the glial cells in the brain) for those who used a cell phone for at least 1,640 hours with the highest risk for tumors in the temporal lobe and on the same side of the head that one exposes to the cell phone.  In other words most of the tumors occurred in the part of the brain receiving the greatest radiation for those who had the longest exposure.  And what did the authors do with this result?

They attributed it to biases and error.  Why?

Study design to minimize finding adverse effects of cell phones

First example:  A regular cell phone user was defined as anyone who made at least one call on their cell phone each week for at least 6 months! Would you expect a person to develop lung cancer if s/he smoked at least one cigarette a week for at least 6 months?  By setting the number of calls  so low (at least 24 calls on a cell phone) it dilutes the effect and favors a “no-effect” result.

Second Example:  People who use cordless phones are exposed to virtually the same type of radiation yet they were not identified as exposed in this study.  The cigarette analogy is comparing those who smoked one brand of cigarettes with those who smoked a different brand but this second group is labelled as “non-smokers”.  This also favors a “no-effect” result. We must recognize that even those people who do not use mobile phones (cell and cordless phones) are exposed to the radiation from nearby users, from nearby cell phone antennas and now from wireless routers as well as city-wide WiFi in a growing number of communities.  So the best we can do is compare users with those who are exposed to the equivalent of second-hand smoke.  This also under estimates the real risk of microwave exposure.

These two biases were so powerful that the final result showed that cell phones prevented brain tumors!

Third example: brain tumors take decades to develop in adults yet only a small fraction (less than 10%) of those people in this study used cell phones for more than 10 years. Just as you wouldn’t expect to find lung cancer in a smoker after 4 to 5 years, you would not expect to find a brain tumor for a cell phone user during this short period of exposure either.

Forth example:  participants were restricted to those between the ages of 30 to 59.  Younger and more vulnerable participants were excluded from this study.  This flaw is now being addressed with a new study based on younger users.

These experimental flaws and the obvious bias in the experimental design should have been caught early and corrected.  But it wasn’t.  Why?

How could so many of the leading scientists in this field allow this to happen? Were they lured by the funding, which came-in part-from the very industry whose product was being studied? There were so many flaws in the experimental design that this article in the International Journal of Epidemiology should not have been accepted for publication by a peer-reviewed journal.  Indeed, the reviewers, whoever they were, should have recommended that this article be rejected or accepted only after major revisions.  This demonstrates problems with our peer-review process that the scientific community values so highly but that process is deeply flawed, and this is just one example.

This study demonstrates that funding (25% of which was provided by the wireless industry) can have a effect on the outcome of a publication.  This has been shown time and again (with microwave radiation and with other environmental toxins including cigarettes) so why would we expect this study to be different.  Indeed several of the authors identified conflicts of interest and associations with the wireless industry that went beyond the funding of this study.

It shows that a flawed experimental design produces unreliable results. The two major results from the Interphone study is that short-term use of cell phones provides protection against brain tumors and long-term use increases the risk of gliomas.  The authors attributed both of these findings to biases and  error!

Why were Interphone related documents called Appendix 1 and 2 published separately in the same journal? Why were these appendices not part of the original report?  Was it because they showed higher levels of risk for both types of brain tumors?

We have included these important documents in PDF format for you to view.

Appendix 1 Interphone: While the original INTERPHONE study stated there was a decreased risk of meningiomas or no effect with cell phone use, Appendix 1 showed an 84% increase risk of meningiomas for those who used a digital phone for 1640 hours or more and those who used both digital and analogue cell phones or if type of phone used was unknown had a 343% increased risk or meningiomas!

Appendix 2 Interphone: In an attempt to try to “correct” the “downward bias” a mini report entitled Appendix 2 was published as a separate document in the same journal.  This appendix compares regular users who used cell phones for less than 2 years (as the reference population) with those who used cell phones for  longer periods.

The table in Appendix 2 provides some disturbing results. It shows that there is a statistically significant increased risk (68%) of developing gliomas for those who used a cell phone for as little as 2-4 years and 118% increased risk for those who used a cell phone for 10+ years.  In the original study these exposure categories were shown to reduce risk of gliomas!  See the highlighted areas in this table with comments.  Indeed the 40% increased risk of glioma mentioned in the original study for those who used a cell phone for 1640 hours or more becomes an 82% increase when compared with regular cell phone users.

So what can we learn from this experience?

We learn that funding can influence the results of a study no matter how much scientists attempt to be objective.

We learn that bigger is not necessarily better.  Had the $25 million dollars been given to independent scientists in various disciplines to determine the biological effects of cell phone use we would have been much further ahead than with the INTERPHONE study.

We learn that a flawed experimental design produces unreliable results. Even the authors of this study claim it is inconclusive and unreliable (since they state that the effects of due to biases and error).

We learn that compromise is necessary for setting standards and establishing policy but not for conducting science.   Science is not done by committee or by consensus and compromise.  The majority is not always right and we have plenty of examples from various scientific disciplines to demonstrate this.

As I read the INTERPHONE report and interviews with participating scientists, I sensed the frustration with the process and can now understand why it has taken so long to produce this document.  I expect that some of those involved are deeply frustrated and perhaps even embarrassed by the outcome.

Elizabeth Cardis, head of the INTERPHONE study, was quoted as stating:  ”In my personal opinion, I think we have a number of elements that suggest a possible increased risk among the heaviest users, and because the heaviest users in our study are considered the low users today, I think that’s something of concern. Until stronger conclusions can be drawn one way or another it may be reasonable to reduce one’s exposure.”

This is a wise comment that we should all heed.

Click HERE to listen to an interview with Elizabeth Cardis.

Cardis is a co-author of a paper showing an increase in Salivary Gland Tumor on the same side of the head that one exposes to a cell phone after a 10-year latency period.  She is also now heading up a study with young users, called Mobi-Kids.  Let’s hope that this new study corrects the flaws of the INTERPHONE study and produces reliable results.

Major advances in science often start with individuals who are curious and want to come as close as possible to understanding the truth about some aspect of our physical reality; individuals who are able to put aside their preconceived notions when they stumble across an unexpected result. Indeed it is these unexpected results that propel our understanding of science and it is those who recognize the value of the unexpected who become known for their “discoveries”.

Thomas Kuhn described this process and called it a paradigm shift.  It refers to a revolutionary change in the way we understand some aspect of science. It is often opposed until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that it can no longer be denied.

We are currently in the midst of a paradigm shift when it comes to understanding the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation.  The evidence that this form of energy causes biological and health effects that are unrelated to heating is now overwhelming.  It won’t be long before the “old school” of thinking is replaced with the new, and when this happens we will see rapid growth in our understanding of both the harmful and healing effects of this type of radiation.  It is my hope that we will also see a shift to safer technology and improved guidelines for protecting public health.

To ensure this happens within the next decade rather than the next century we need independent funding of science on the biological effects of non-ionizing electromagnetic energy.  The money spent on research will be repaid many times with the money saved on health care costs, disability compensation for those who develop electrohypersensitvitiy, and improved performance at work and school.

Revised May 17 2010. Head of the INTERPHONE study, Elisabeth Cardis, and scientists in Israel link mobile phones to parotid gland tumors. Dr. Siegal Sadetski, testifies at US Senate Hearing

Magda Havas, BSc., PhD

Institute for Health Studies and Environmental & Resource Studies, Trent University, Peterborough, ON, Canada.

DOWNLOAD THIS VIDEO in high resolution (QuickTime required)

VIEW/DOWNLOAD article in PDF

Portions of the much delayed Interphone Study are now released. It was initiated in 2000 as an international set of case-control studies in 13 countries around the world focusing on four types of tumours in tissues that most absorb RF energy emitted by mobile phones: tumours of the brain (glioma and meningioma), of the acoustic nerve (schwannoma), and of the parotid gland. The objective was to determine whether mobile phone use increases the risk of these tumours. Interphone is the largest case- control study of mobile phone use and brain tumours yet and includes the largest numbers of users with at least 10 years of exposure.

The study found that if you used a cell phone for longer than ten years, there were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, in the highest decile of cumulative call time, (more than 10 years)  in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour and, for glioma, for tumours in the temporal lobe. Unfortunately, the data collected on the acoustic nerve and parotid glands has been left out of the findings – WHY?

The video below presents some good answers.

The Facts of Salivary Gland Tumors and Interphone

It begins as a lump or mass on the side of the face in front of the ear, at or above the jawbone. If the growth is slow and the lump is painless it is likely to be benign (80% of cases). If the area is painful or numb (nerve paralysis) it may be malignant (20% of cases) and the prognosis is poor with average survival of 2.7 years and a 10-year survival of 14-26%. It affects between 1 to 3 people per 100,000 each year in the Western world. What I am referring to is a parotid gland tumor (PGT), also known as salivary gland tumor (SGT).

Parotid tumors have not received much attention until recently.

Roger Ebert, 63, Pulitzer prize-winning movie critic in the Ebert & Roeper show, had his cancerous parotid gland tumor removed June 16, 2006.

Lebron James, 24, basketball MVP for the Cleveland Cavaliers, underwent surgery for a benign parotid tumor in June 2009.

Adam Yauch, 44, of the Beastie Boys was diagnosed in July 2009 with a malignant parotid tumor and is scheduled for surgery. His band had to cancel engagements as a consequence. Click here to view his statement on YouTube.

Senator John McCain had part of his left parotid gland removed in 2000 although this was in conjunction with removal of lymph nodes as a precautionary step because of his bout with cancer. Recent photographs of John McCain (April 2008) show an enlarged mass on the left side of his face right where his parotid gland is located.

Salivary gland tumors have been associated with ionizing radiation including X-rays and gamma radiation following environmental exposure. For example, survivors of the atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima experienced an increase rate in salivary gland tumors. Radiation therapy, including x-ray of the head or radiation for enlarged tonsils in children or for various types of cancers, has also been implicated in this type of tumor, as has inhalation of carcinogens (asbestos mining, plumbing, rubber manufacturing, and wood dust); and various types of viral infections (herpes and possibly HIV).

In 2008, another culprit contributing to salivary gland tumors was identified – the mobile phone. Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, who testified in September 2009 at a US Senate Hearing on cell phones, is the Principle Investigator of this report that was based on a Nationwide Israel case-control study for the period 2001 to 2003. One of the co-authors of this report, Elisabeth Cardis, is the head of the just released $15 plus million dollar, 13-country INTERPHONE epidemiological study of tumor risk for adult mobile phone users. She is also the co-ordinator of the European Commission project MOBI-Kids, which is evaluating the possible association between communication technology and risk of brain tumors in young people.

While previous studies found no association with mobile phone use and PGT, the most recent and largest study to date (Sadetzki et al. 2008) does report such an association.

If you read the abstract it is a bit confusing for the average person because it states the following:

“For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p=0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated.” The odds ratio is scientific notation that identifies the degree of risk (above 1 is higher risk and below 1 is lower risk) and the probability value (p) indicates whether this finding is statistically significant (generally when p is less than 0.05 it is considered significant). So the above quote agrees with previous studies that there was no association between salivary gland tumors and cell phone use.

BUT – The very next sentence shows that there is a danger for some individuals and reads: “However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g. heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks.”

So what does this elevated risk amount to?

The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by . . .

• 34% if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.
• 58% if you had more than 5,479 calls in your life-time.
• 49% if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your life-time.
• 47% if you have used a mobile phone for 5 years or more and have had more than 5,479 calls in your life-time.
• 50% if you have used a mobile phone for 5 years or more and have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours.

And if you live in a rural away from major cities area your risk increases by . . .

• 81% if you have made more than 18,996 calls in your life-time.
• 96% if you have a life-time exposure of more than 1,035 hours.

. . . since towers are farther apart, mobile phones have to emit higher levels of radiation to communicate with the nearest antenna.

Other reports back up this study.

A study conducted by the Israeli Dental Association between 1970 and 2006 reports a large increase in cancers of the salivary gland in Israel which may related to use of cell phones (cited in the daily Haaretz July 2009).

“Between 1980 and 2002, the number of parotid salivary cancers has remained stable at 25 per year, whereas this figure rose to 75 during the next five years,” said Avi Zini, Hadassah School of Dental Medicine. Every fifth patient was under the age of 20. While this study did not include information on cell phone use, researchers plan to collect this data in the next stage of their study.

The message from these reports are the same . . . the higher the exposure, the longer the exposure, the greater the risk! That is why scientists are finding an association with ipsilateral (same side of the head) tumors generally after 10 years of regular or heavy mobile phone use. This is the case for tumors of the brain (gliomas), the nerve leading to the ear (acoustic neuroma), the eye (uveal melanoma), and now the salivary gland (parotid tumor).

The statement above is also why some studies don’t find an association with tumors and cell phone use and is the cause for so much confusion in the media . . . Most studies that report cell phones are safe allow for an exposure period that is too short, and the users are defined as anyone who uses a cell phone at least once a week for 6 months or more. This dilutes the data in favor of “no effect”. The same logic can be used for cigarettes. We now know tobacco is carcinogenic but we would not expect to find lung cancer among those who smoke one cigarette a week and have been smoking for just over 6 months. Read these reports carefully and they will state we need long-term studies.

While individuals can reduce their use of mobile phones, or follow the advise of doctors who suggest using wired air-tube headsets, some of the onus needs to be placed at the feet of the telecom industry that makes huge profits from selling these devices. If mobile phones can be designed to take photographs and videos, to record voices or play music, to tell you where you are and what time it is, then surely they can be re-designed to emit less radiation and to prevent the phone being placed against the head.

As a scientist, I’m disturbed knowing that policy makers largely ignore studies showing adverse health effects of microwave radiation. What will it take for officials in regulating agencies to recognize that exposing the head to microwave radiation at current levels may be as foolish as X-raying children’s feet to fit them with shoes as was done a few decades ago?

With 4 billion mobile phone users worldwide, if we don’t react in a timely fashion to these “early warnings” we will face a human health tsunami. But, unlike natural tsunamis that happen quickly and – once the devastation ends – survivors can rebuild their lives, the microwave tsunami is likely to be a slow, silent, invisible killer taking a few lives at a time. The longer we ignore this threat, the more lives that will be lost, unnecessarily. While I hope I am wrong, I fear . . . I might be right. Time will tell.

For more information:

Amiriak, B, HWM Chim, EH Chen, and DW Stepnick. updated Jun 24 2009. Parotid Tumors.

Calabrese, DM and RJ Frey. 2009. Salivary Gland Tumors.

Hardell, L. M. Carlberg, and K. Hansson Mild. 2009. Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases. Pathophysiology 16(2):113-122.

Lonn,S., A Ahlbom, HC Christensen, et al. 2006. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. Amer. J. Epid. 164(7):637-643.

National Cancer Institute. Salivary Gland Cancer Treatment.

Sadetzki, S, A Chetrit, A Jarus-Hakak, E Cardis, Y Deutch, S Duvdevani, A Zultan, I Novikov, L Freedman, and M. Wolf. 2008. Cellular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors—A nationwide case-control study. Amer. J. Epid. 167 (4): 457-467.

Zarbo, R. 2001. Salivary Gland Neoplasia: A review of the practicing pathologist. Mod Pathol 202: 15(3): 298-323.

April 2010.  Dr. Santosh Kesari, Director of Neuro-Oncology at the Moores Cancer Center at UC San Diego, believes the latest findings that cell phones can lead to brain tumours. In this video he discusses the findings and informs the host about a clinic in San Diego that’s helping to treat brain tumours.

Posted January 2010. ‘Mobile-Boro Man’ -is his second addiction a cancer-cell phone? was written by Michael Moffa and appeared in the Hong Kong Edition of China Daily on December 25, 2009. It questions whether we are becoming addicted to our cell phones and, as you might guess from the title, it makes a connection between mobile phones and cigarette smoking.

Credits: Photo by Timothy Chui.

September 2009. Dr. Sam Milham, MD, has been researching the health effects of electromagnetic exposure for decades and his most recent paper, which appeared in the September issue of the Journal of Medical Hypotheses, is particularly disturbing. See summary below.

In the 1940s, there was a discrepancy between electricity use in rural vs urban centres in some US states. This allowed Milham to compare death rates for various diseases and relate them to the degree of electrification.

In states with 96% or more electrification, and hence little difference in electrification between rural and urban regions, there was no consistent pattern and little difference in the rural/urban death rate (see figure 5 below). However in states with less than 60% electrification, and most of that in urban centres, the death rate was significant higher in urban areas than in rural areas (figure 5). Similar trends were reported for deaths attributed to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and suicide.

Milham then calculated the percent urban excess for these deaths as follows: All deaths 20.9%; suicide 29.5%; coronary disease 33.7%; all cancers 49.2%; and diabetes 66%. If this urban excess is due to electrification then we have a very serious health issue that needs to be addressed.

This important paper needs to be taken seriously by government health departments. Other scientific studies confirm these findings although none of them shows such dramatic results.

Doctors and scientists can readily understand how chemicals may either help or harm the body since we have a long history of chemicals and their biological effects both in terms of the healing effects of medication and the harmful effects of chemical pollutants. Indeed, we attribute the increase in the “diseases” of the 21st century to some combination of chemical toxicants (for example cigarette smoking and heart disease, asbestos and mesothelioma), or biological agents (such as the flu virus, bacterial infection, parasites, mould), and some combination of lifestyle choices (diet and exercise).

Few take into consideration the impact that the electromagnetic environment has on our health. For some reason the only harmful aspects of electromagnetic energy that are widely accepted include excess UV radiation leading to melanoma, x-rays and cosmic radiation contributing to various types of cancers, the heating effect of microwaves, childhood leukemia and magnetic fields, and light at night reducing melatonin levels and possibly contributing to breast cancer. Apart from these, it is assumed that electricity and the wireless technology that surrounds us is totally benign. How absurd!

The sooner we recognize that electromagnetic energy can both harm and heal the sooner we will be able to address many of the health issues we are facing today. We desperately need an infusion of information and/or a paradigm shift in the way health care professions, doctors, medical schools, and medical scientists understand and deal with electromagnetic energy. This understanding will come. My hope it that is comes sooner rather than later so that we can more effectively alleviate some of the causes of human suffering.
-magda havas

Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of ‘‘diseases of civilization”

Samuel Milham, Washington State Department of Health, Olympia, WA, USA Medical Hypotheses, September 2009 in press.

Summary: The slow spread of residential electrification in the US in the first half of the 20th century from urban to rural areas resulted by 1940 in two large populations; urban populations, with nearly complete electrification and rural populations exposed to varying levels of electrification depending on the progress of electrification in their state. It took until 1956 for US farms to reach urban and rural non-farm electrification levels. Both populations were covered by the US vital registration system. US vital statistics tabulations and census records for 1920–1960, and historical US vital statistics documents were examined. Residential electrification data was available in the US census of population for 1930, 1940 and 1950. Crude urban and rural death rates were calculated, and death rates by state were correlated with electrification rates by state for urban and rural areas for 1940 white resident deaths. Urban death rates were much higher than rural rates for cardiovascular diseases, malignant diseases, diabetes and suicide in 1940. Rural death rates were significantly correlated with level of residential electric service by state for most causes examined. I hypothesize that the 20th century epidemic of the so called diseases of civilization including cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes and suicide was caused by electrification not by lifestyle. A large proportion of these diseases may therefore be preventable.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

September 2009.

And now for a different perspective, what journalists call “fair and balanced” reporting.

Fox News interviews Dr. Philip Stieg, Chief Neurosurgeon at the New York-Presbyterian University Hospital, who believes cell phones are safe. He states that there is no data to support that cellphones are dangerous and that while cell phone use has increased exponentially, the incidence of brain tumors remains relatively stable.

He goes on to list the types of tumors for which there is no evidence including malignant and benign brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, and eye tumors. I wonder if he’s read the papers by Kundi and Hardell showing a statistically significant increased risk of these very tumors for which Dr. Stieg says there is no evidence. Obviously there is evidence but apparently Dr. Stieg is unaware of it.

The Hardell study reports that those at greatest risk are those under the age of 20 when they first started using a cell phone. Their risk of developing a tumor increases by 520%. So the comment that we have no evidence that young people are more sensitive is simply wrong.

A blog associated with this youtube video says “Follow the money. Verizon is a major donor to New York Presbyterian.” So I did. And what I found on page 61 in the 2006-07 Annual Report is that Verizon, the wireless giant, is a major donor to New York Presbyterian University Hospital just as the blogger suggests.

There is something unusual, perhaps it is synchronicity, in a part of this video. Listen carefully between the timer interval 2:45 and 2:55. What you are hearing is electromagnetic interference of the broadcast signal probably caused by a cell phone. The signal is strong enough to affect the audio recording device but, according to Dr. Stieg, it is far too weak to have any affect on the human body.

Dr. Stieg’s advice is that there is no need to take any precautions. Hope he’s right although I suspect he is wrong.

I wonder if fair and balanced reporting needs to be accurate and factually correct or if it just needs to present a different perspective to keep people confused.

This interview comes after a Senate Committee Hearing on Cell Phone Cancer Dangers in Washington. So what do the scientists at that hearing have to say? Click HERE to view the Senate Hearings on C-SPAN

August 2009.

Dr. Martin Blank is a Professor at Columbia University, New York and specializes on the effects that electromagnetic fields have on stress proteins. In this lecture he speaks about the associated health effects that can lead to cancer.

He is a contributor to the Bioinitiative report.