Dariusz Leszczynski Australia November 2014
Post on 16-Jul-2015
1649 Views
Preview:
Transcript
CELL PHONE RADIATIONHealth Risk and Precautionary Principle
Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc
Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki, Finland
Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers in Radiation and Health, Switzerland
Member of the Advisory Board, Cellraid, Ltd, Finland
Science blogger @ BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place
Australia, November 2014
Who I am... few examples of my experience
• Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki, Finland
• Chief Editor of ’Radiation and Health’; specialty of Frontiers in Public Health
• Two doctorates in biochemistry and in cell biology
• 22 years (1992-2013) at Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority
• 2003-2007 as Head of Radiation Biology laboratory
• 2000-2013 as Research Professor
• Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School 1997-1999
• Guangbiao Professor at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China 2006-2009
• Visiting Professor at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia 2012/2013
• Testified in US Senate hearing on cell phones and health, in 2009
• Expert in IARC 2011 classification of carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
WHO defintion of health
“Health is a state of complete physical, mental andsocial well-being and not merely the absence ofdisease or infirmity”
Whenever discussing safety of radiation emitted by the wirelesscommunication devices we need to remember this WHOdefinition of health
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
“CELL PHONES REACH THE MARKET WITHOUT SAFETY TESTING
The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communicationstechnology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put intocommerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limitedresources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. Therationale, known as the “low power exclusion,” distinguished cell phones from dangerousmicrowave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At thattime, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough toheat human tissue.”
from the LifeExtension Magazine August 2007The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone RadiationGeorge Carlo interviewed by Sue Kovach
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
IARC evaluation may 2011
• 30 invited experts divided into four sub-groups• Dosimetry
• Epidemiology
• Animal studies
• Mechanistic laboratory in vitro studies
• Decissions done by consensus or by simple majority
• The vast majority of the 30 experts voted for the possible carcinogen classification
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
IARC 2011: Epidemiology
• Interphone & Hardell studies• no reliable exposure data based on person’s memory
• risk increase in long-term avid users
• Children – only CEFALO• exposures for 2-4 years
• has no statistical power to detect small risk
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
...after IARC: Epidemiology
• Trend-data - Little et al. 2012: slow rise of brain cancer cases in USA• trend is similar to Interphone “prediction” but not Hardell “prediction”
• Danish Cohort update study 2011 – no effect but no exposure data• no radiation exposure data at all; just the length of phone subscription with
service provider
• Million Women study 2014 - no effect but exposure data inadequate• use of cell phone: ‘never’, ‘less than once a day’, ‘every day’
• CERENAT study from France 2014 – effect as in Inerphone and Hardell• no reliable exposure data based on person’s memory
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
The limited human evidence was based on the results of two sets of epidemiological studies European Interphone group and Hardell group in Sweden
After the IARC evaluation, in 2014, was published a new epidemiological study - the French CERENAT
The French study reached similar conclusions as Interphone and Hardell previously –long term avid use of cell phone increases a risk of developing brain cancer
It means that now there are three replications of the same epidemiological type of study, the case-control study, that all suggest cell phone radiation might increase a risk of brain cancer
Epidemiological evidence supports cancer risk
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
• All to date executed epidemiology studies have completely unreliable orlack completely of the radiation exposure data
• Length of calls or length of phone subscription with service provider or sayingwhether you ever or never used cell phone, do not inform about the real exposureof the cell phone user
• Using the above ”radiation exposure data”, persons with very different realradiation exposures are placed in the same exposed group for statisticalevaluation. This skewes results
• Ongoing cohort study COSMOS collects exposure data as length of callswhat is yet again not reliable radiation exposure information
There is a way to improve exposure data using apps installed on cell phones
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
(cellraid.com)
Cell phone app – proprietary algorithm, runs on anycommercial Android phone and simultaneouslymeasures RF emission exposure from cell phone,cell tower and wi-fi and stores it in the cloud
Monitoring wireless exposures with The way to improve scientific research and public’s awareness
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
IARC 2011: Human studies
• The vast majority are “feelings” studies• Subjects asked how they feel
• Subject asked do they feel when radiation is on/off
• EHS must exist – question is only of what is radiation cut-off level
• Otherwise RF would be the only factor not causing individual sensitivity in people
• Problem of EHS – studied by psychologists not physiologists – wrong methods
• WHO definition of health – how to consider it? IARC classification justifies reasoningfor “mental and social well-being”
• Lack of studies examining biochemical responses of human tissues (!)• Single skin proteomics study
• Two studies examined glucose metabolism in the brain
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
IARC 2011: Animal studies
• No classical toxicology possible• Not possible to overdose cell phone radiation because of heating effect
• By classical toxicology standards RF would be judged as harmful to humans
• Life-time exposures to radiation at doses similar to those emitted by cell phones showno effect – result is useless for human health risk estimation
• Misleading claims that animal studies do not show effects but notmentioning that the radiation dose is similar to human exposures (!)
• Co-carcinogen studies show some effects – cell phone radiation mightpotentiate effects of carcinogenic chemicals or radiation
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
Potential problem is a “moving target”
Even if individual risk will be small, considering that there are over 6.9 billion of cell phone users, the burden for the society might be sizable in monetary and human suffering terms
Radiation exposures from cell phones and from smart phones are not comparable – smart phone radiation exposures are much higher because of data traffic
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
The IARC classification, of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen, invalidates the ICNIRP and WHO claims that the current safety standards protect all users
In three independent epidemiological case-control studies, two of which were evaluated by IARC, adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cell phones
These cell phones were built to fulfil all ICNIRP safety standards
However, avid use of such “safe” cell phones for period of over 10 years led to an increased risk of brain cancer
This means, the current safety standards do not protect sufficiently users of cell phones
Safety standards - insufficient to protect users
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
Invoking the Precautionary Principle
“Whether or not to invoke the Precautionary Principle is adecision exercised where scientific information is insufficient,inconclusive, or uncertain and where there are indicationsthat the possible effects on environment, or human, animal orplant health may be potentially dangerous and inconsistentwith the chosen level of protection.”
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
Invoking the Precautionary Principle
• Scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain• IARC classification as possible carcinogen (2B category)
• There are indications that the possible effects on human health maybe potentially dangerous• epidemiological studies (Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT) show an
increased brain cancer risk in long-term avid users
• Inconsistent with the chosen level of protection• epidemiological studies, showing increased risk in long-term avid
users, were generated using persons with regular cell phones,meeting current safety standards = current safety standards are beinsufficient to protect users
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
The scientific evidence on health hazard due to cell phone radiationexposures is still inconclusive
However, there are acknowledged red flags – studies showing risk
The requirement of providing conclusive scientific proof has posed a barrierin numerous campaigns to protect health and the environment.
Early warning signs are ignored or dismissed and actions to prevent harmare usually taken only after significant proof of harm is established, atwhich point it may be too late and it requires substantial efforts to reverseharm done to population or environment.
We should learn from the history of the numerous past mistakes
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
Impact of Implementing Precautionary Principle
• Precaution does not equal Prevention
• Strong opposition from telecom industry• Technology providers can be made responsible to prove their product is safe• Requirement of making more efficient (less radiation emissions) technology• Limiting current rampant and uncontrolled deployment of wireless networks
• Will create new knowledge through research
• Will create new jobs in research and technology
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
Conclusions
• IARC classification of the cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen is asufficient reason for invoking Precautionary Principle
• Claims that the current safety standards protect all users are not supported bythe scientific evidence
• Users should be informed about the current scientific uncertainty and advisedto limit exposures whenever possible and feasible and strongly discouragedfrom keeping cell phones close to body (in pockets)
• Real radiation exposure data should be used in epidemiological studies
• ALARA principle should be implemented for RF exposures
Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014
top related