Chapter 5: The Importance of the
SCENIHR 2015 Document and the Many Omissions, Flaws and Falsehoods in That
Document
One thing that I think we can all agree upon, is that the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document is an important document. The reason for its importance is that previous industry-friendly documents, and there have been many of
them, have
only reviewed very limited amounts of the literature on EMF effects.
Consequently all of these other documents are open to the criticism that they
have cherry picked what little data they have chosen to discuss. SCENIHR 2015
[73] has a reference list of almost 48 pages in length, going from page 233 to
280. So it appears that SCENIHR 2015 may have done a much more thorough and
defensible review of the literature. Our assessement of SCENIHR 2015 [73] is
important because of the confidence expressed in this document both by Mr. Ryan
and Dr. Vinciūnas and also by the U.S. National Cancer Institute. The question
that is being raised here is whether SCENIHR 2015 is thorough and defensible or
not.One thing that I think we can all agree upon, is that the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document is an important document. The reason for its importance is that previous industry-friendly documents, and there have been many of
The Speit/Schwarz Controversy: How SCENIHR Has Put Out Seven Falsehoods in Support of the Industry Progaganda Position
I am going to start by discussing a single particularly important issue from [73]. At the end of Table 5 in [73]. there is a claim that a 2013 study by Speit et al [74] was unable to replicate the findings of a 2008 study published by Schwarz et al [75]. In Table 5 they state further that Speit el al found “No effect on DNA integrity (MN) and DNA migration (comet); Repetition study of Schwarz et al, 2008.” What is called loss of DNA integrity here, measured by formation of micronuclei (MN), is caused by the formation of double strand breaks in cellular DNA. The comet assay measures single strand breaks in cellular DNA. Schwarz et al [75] found strong evidence that there were large increases in both single strand and double strand breaks in cellular DNA following very low intensity exposures to a cell phone-like pulsed radiation, but SCENIHR claims that Speit et al [74] were unable to repeat the earlier study. Elsewhere (p.89, bottom) SCENIHR states that “By using the same exposure system and the same experimental protocols as the authors of the original study, they failed to confirm the results. They did not find any explanation for these conflicting results (Speit et al, 2013).”
A careful examination of both [74] and [75] finds the following: 1. Speit et al [74] used a lymphocytic cell line, HL-60; Schwarz et al [75] studied human fibroblasts. This is a big difference because, as we have already said, different cell types behave differently. 2. Speit et al [74] used 1800 MHz radiation; Schwarz et al [75] used 1950 MHz radiation (the frequency of UMTS, also called 3G). Again we have a potentially important difference because effects are influenced by the frequency used. 3. Speit et al [74] used a continuous wave EMF; Schwarz et al [75] used a highly pulsed EMF, with high levels of both KHz and MHz pulsations to mimic the pulsation pattern of 3G cell phones. This is expected to produce very large differences between the two studies. 4. Speit et al [74] used a reverberation exposure chamber; Schwarz et al [75] did not use any exposure chamber. This could be another very large difference between the two studies, a difference that will be discussed toward the end of this chapter. 5. So where did the claim come from that Speit was trying to repeat the Schwarz study? Speit et al [74] says in their paper that they were trying to repeat another study (not Schwarz) that was described in a report but was never published. 6. Speit et al [74] do not even cite the Schwarz et al [75] paper, so obviously they did not intend to repeat Schwarz. We have then SCENIHR 2015 stating three
28
multifaceted
falsehoods that Speit et al [74] tried to repeat the earlier studies of Schwarz
et al [75], that they were unable to repeat those Schwarz et al [75] studies
and that they used identical methodology to that used by Schwarz et al [75]. In
addition to those three are four underlying falsehoods – namely that the two
studies used very different methodologies, notably differing in the cell type
studied, differing in the frequency used, differing widely in the in pulsations
used and differing in the use of an exposure chamber. Each of these falsehoods are SCENIHR’s not Speit et al [74]’ s, each of
them can be easily seen to be false by even a superficial reading of these two
papers.
As you might guess, there is a major story behind all of this. The very low intensity exposure used in the Schwarz et al [75] study produced large numbers of DNA breaks, larger than that produced by 1600 chest X-rays. This conclusion can be made by comparing the results of Schwarz et al [75] with the earlier study of Lutz and Adlkofer [76]. From this comparison, it seems clear that non-ionizing radiation similar to 3G radiation can be much more dangerous to the DNA of our cells than is a similar energy of ionizing radiation. When this was found, the industry went into attack mode, attacking the two Professors who collaborated in [75], Prof. Franz Adlkofer in Germany and Prof. Hugo Rüdinger in Austria. The first couple of years of these attacks have been described in some detail on pp 117-131 in Dr. Devra Davis’ book Disconnect [77]. Before the SCENIHR 2015 document was drafted, it was clear that the publishers who had published Adlkofer’s and Rüdinger’s work, not just the Schwarz et al [75] study but other papers by the same research group, had long since rejected the industry propaganda claims. In addition. Adlkofer had won a lawsuit in the German courts against his main accuser. He has subsequently since won a second such lawsuit. The last paragraph on p.89 in SCENIHR 2015 is word for word industry propaganda. What is clear is that SCENIHR is wittingly or unwittingly serving as a propagandist for the industry in and that process, SCENIHR has no difficulty in putting forth seven obvious, individually important falsehoods.
One question that needs to be raised is how is it possible for microwave frequency EMFs to produce much more cellular DNA damage than a comparable energy level of ionizing radiation? Both ionizing radiation and microwave/lower frequency EMFs act via free radicals to attack the DNA. If you examine Fig. 1, Chapter 2, you will see how low intensity microwave frequency EMFs can act (p. 20). The free radicals that attack the DNA are breakdown products peroxynitrite.. The sequence of events leading to those free radicals starts, of course with the extraordinarily high sensitivity of the VGCC voltage sensor to the electrical forces of the EMFs that open the VGCC calcium channels. Following that there are three steps in the process leading to peroxynitrite elevation each of which have high levels of amplification. The first of these is that when the VGCC channels are open, they allow the influx of about a million calcium ion per second into the cell. The second amplification is that elevated intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i activates the synthesis of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide. The third amplification is that the formation of peroxynitrite is proportional to the product of nitric oxide concentration times the superoxide concentration. When you have three sequential amplification mechanisms, you can get a very large response, in this case free radical attack on cellular DNA, from a very small initial signal. That is where much of the existential crises are coming are from, with EMFs threatening the survival of every technologically advanced country on earth.
Going back to falsehoods perpetrated by SCENIHR regarding Speit/Schwarz, here are two possible interpretations for those seven falsehoods. One is that SCENIHR is simply an industry propaganda organ. The second is that we have a group of scientists (SCENIHR) who are largely incompetent and that it is just coincidence that these seven falsehoods serve the industry propaganda case. Either of these interpretations completely destroy the claims of confidence in
As you might guess, there is a major story behind all of this. The very low intensity exposure used in the Schwarz et al [75] study produced large numbers of DNA breaks, larger than that produced by 1600 chest X-rays. This conclusion can be made by comparing the results of Schwarz et al [75] with the earlier study of Lutz and Adlkofer [76]. From this comparison, it seems clear that non-ionizing radiation similar to 3G radiation can be much more dangerous to the DNA of our cells than is a similar energy of ionizing radiation. When this was found, the industry went into attack mode, attacking the two Professors who collaborated in [75], Prof. Franz Adlkofer in Germany and Prof. Hugo Rüdinger in Austria. The first couple of years of these attacks have been described in some detail on pp 117-131 in Dr. Devra Davis’ book Disconnect [77]. Before the SCENIHR 2015 document was drafted, it was clear that the publishers who had published Adlkofer’s and Rüdinger’s work, not just the Schwarz et al [75] study but other papers by the same research group, had long since rejected the industry propaganda claims. In addition. Adlkofer had won a lawsuit in the German courts against his main accuser. He has subsequently since won a second such lawsuit. The last paragraph on p.89 in SCENIHR 2015 is word for word industry propaganda. What is clear is that SCENIHR is wittingly or unwittingly serving as a propagandist for the industry in and that process, SCENIHR has no difficulty in putting forth seven obvious, individually important falsehoods.
One question that needs to be raised is how is it possible for microwave frequency EMFs to produce much more cellular DNA damage than a comparable energy level of ionizing radiation? Both ionizing radiation and microwave/lower frequency EMFs act via free radicals to attack the DNA. If you examine Fig. 1, Chapter 2, you will see how low intensity microwave frequency EMFs can act (p. 20). The free radicals that attack the DNA are breakdown products peroxynitrite.. The sequence of events leading to those free radicals starts, of course with the extraordinarily high sensitivity of the VGCC voltage sensor to the electrical forces of the EMFs that open the VGCC calcium channels. Following that there are three steps in the process leading to peroxynitrite elevation each of which have high levels of amplification. The first of these is that when the VGCC channels are open, they allow the influx of about a million calcium ion per second into the cell. The second amplification is that elevated intracellular calcium [Ca2+]i activates the synthesis of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide. The third amplification is that the formation of peroxynitrite is proportional to the product of nitric oxide concentration times the superoxide concentration. When you have three sequential amplification mechanisms, you can get a very large response, in this case free radical attack on cellular DNA, from a very small initial signal. That is where much of the existential crises are coming are from, with EMFs threatening the survival of every technologically advanced country on earth.
Going back to falsehoods perpetrated by SCENIHR regarding Speit/Schwarz, here are two possible interpretations for those seven falsehoods. One is that SCENIHR is simply an industry propaganda organ. The second is that we have a group of scientists (SCENIHR) who are largely incompetent and that it is just coincidence that these seven falsehoods serve the industry propaganda case. Either of these interpretations completely destroy the claims of confidence in
29
SCENIHR
that Mr. Ryan and Dr. Vinciūnas made in the documents they wrote that were
referred to in the Preface of this document.
I have written here another 27 pages critiquing the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document. If you are already convinced that the SCENIHR claims that there are no established non-thermal EMF effects are false and that we have eight extremely well documented effects (Chapter 1) and that we have detailed mechanisms of how these effects are produced (Chapter 2), then I suggest you skip to the summary of Chapter 5 starting on p. 57 and then go on to the consider the U.S. situation in Chapter 6 and 5G in Chapter 7. If, however, you are not so convinced, you need to read the intervening 27 pages.
22 Reviews on EMF Effects, 20 of Which Are Ignored by SCENIHR, Two of Which Are Discussed in [73] but Essentially Dismissed
Now let’s go on to consider how SCENIHR 2015 [73] considers the many independent reviews, listed in Chapter 1, which disagree with them and also fall into the 2009 through 2013 period that SCENIHR claims to have thoroughly considered. See Table 3.
Table 3: 2009 to 2013 Reviews that Should Have Been Cited and Discussed in SCENIHR 2015
I have written here another 27 pages critiquing the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document. If you are already convinced that the SCENIHR claims that there are no established non-thermal EMF effects are false and that we have eight extremely well documented effects (Chapter 1) and that we have detailed mechanisms of how these effects are produced (Chapter 2), then I suggest you skip to the summary of Chapter 5 starting on p. 57 and then go on to the consider the U.S. situation in Chapter 6 and 5G in Chapter 7. If, however, you are not so convinced, you need to read the intervening 27 pages.
22 Reviews on EMF Effects, 20 of Which Are Ignored by SCENIHR, Two of Which Are Discussed in [73] but Essentially Dismissed
Now let’s go on to consider how SCENIHR 2015 [73] considers the many independent reviews, listed in Chapter 1, which disagree with them and also fall into the 2009 through 2013 period that SCENIHR claims to have thoroughly considered. See Table 3.
Table 3: 2009 to 2013 Reviews that Should Have Been Cited and Discussed in SCENIHR 2015
|
Citation
|
Brief Summary
|
What does SCENIHR 2015 say about it?
|
|
[78]
Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. 2009 Cell phones and brain
tumors: a review including the long- term epidemiologic data. Surg Neurol
72:205-214.
|
Meta-analysis
study of cell phone usage and brain cancer. The results indicate that using a
cell phone for > or = 10 years approximately doubles the risk of being
diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same ("ipsilateral") side of
the head preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical
significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma. CONCLUSION:
The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest
a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an
ipsilateral brain tumor.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[79]
Desai NR, Kesari KK, Agarwal A. 2009 Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation:
oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on the male reproductive
system. Reproduct Biol Endocrinol 7:114.
|
This
review identifies the plasma membrane as a target of RF-EMW. In addition, the
effects of RF-EMW on plasma membrane structures (i.e. NADH oxidase,
phosphatidylserine, ornithine decarboxylase) and voltage-gated calcium
channels are discussed. We explore the disturbance in reactive oxygen species
(ROS) metabolism caused by RF-EMW and delineate NADH oxidase mediated ROS
formation as playing a central role in oxidative stress (OS) due to cell
phone radiation (with a focus on the male reproductive system). This review
also addresses: 1) the controversial effects of RF-EMW on mammalian cells and
sperm DNA as well as its effect on apoptosis, 2) epidemiological, in vivo
animal and in vitro studies on
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
30
|
|
the
effect of RF-EMW on male reproductive system.
|
|
|
[80]
Makker K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. 2009 Cell phones:
modern man's nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online 18:148-157.
|
Effects
of cell phone exposure on the cardiovascular system, sleep and cognitive
function, as well as localized and general adverse effects, genotoxicity
potential, neurohormonal secretion and tumour induction. The proposed
mechanisms by which cell phones adversely affect various aspects of human
health, and male fertility in particular, are explained, and the emerging
molecular techniques and approaches for elucidating the effects of mobile
phone radiation on cellular physiology using high-throughput screening
techniques, such as metabolomics and microarrays, are discussed. A novel
study is described, which is looking at changes in semen parameters,
oxidative stress markers and sperm DNA damage in semen samples exposed in
vitro to cell phone radiation.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[81]
Ruediger HW. 2009 Genotoxic effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
Pathophysiology. 16:89-102.
|
101
publications are exploited which have studied genotoxicity of radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) in vivo and in vitro. Of these 49 report a
genotoxic effect and 42 do not. In addition, 8 studies failed to detect an
influence on the genetic material, but showed that RF-EMF enhanced the
genotoxic action of other chemical or physical agents. Variation in results
may in part be explained by the different cellular systems and from the
variety of analytical methods being used. Taking altogether there is ample
evidence that RF-EMF can alter the genetic material of exposed cells in vivo
and in vitro and in more than one way. This genotoxic action may be mediated
by microthermal effects in cellular structures, formation of free radicals,
or an interaction with DNA-repair mechanisms.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[82]
Phillips JL, Singh NP, Lai H. 2009 Electromagnetic fields and DNA damage.
Pathophysiology 16:79-88.
|
A
major concern of the adverse effects of exposure to non-ionizing electromagnetic
field (EMF) is cancer induction. Since the majority of cancers are initiated
by damage to a cell's genome, studies have been carried out to investigate
the effects of electromagnetic fields on DNA and chromosomal structure.
Additionally, DNA damage can lead to changes in cellular functions and cell
death. Single cell gel electrophoresis, also known as the 'comet assay', has
been widely used in EMF research to determine DNA damage, reflected as
single-strand breaks, double- strand breaks, and crosslinks. Studies have
also been carried out to investigate chromosomal conformational changes and
micronucleus formation in cells after exposure to EMF. This review describes
the comet assay and its utility to qualitatively and quantitatively assess
DNA damage, reviews studies that have
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
31
|
|
investigated
DNA strand breaks and other changes in DNA structure, and then discusses
important lessons learned from our work in this area.
|
|
|
[83]
Davanipour Z, Sobel E. 2009 Long- term exposure to magnetic fields and the
risks of Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer: Further biological research.
Pathophysiology 16:149-156.
|
Extremely
low frequency (ELF) and radio frequency (RF) magnetic fields (MFs) pervade
our environment. Whether or not these magnetic fields are associated with
increased risk of serious diseases, e.g., cancers and Alzheimer's disease, is
thus important when developing a rational public policy. Our objective was to
provide an unbiased review of the current knowledge and to provide our
general and specific conclusions.
RESULTS: The evidence indicates that long-term significant occupational exposure to ELF MF may certainly increase the risk of both Alzheimer's disease and breast cancer. There is now evidence that two relevant biological processes (increased production of amyloid beta and decreased production of melatonin) are influenced by high long-term ELF MF exposure that may lead to Alzheimer's disease. There is further evidence that one of these biological processes (decreased melatonin production) may also lead to breast cancer. Finally, there is evidence that exposures to RF MF and ELF MF have similar biological consequences. CONCLUSION: It is important to mitigate ELF and RF MF exposures through equipment design changes and environmental placement of electrical equipment. |
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[84]
Yakymenko I, Sidorik E. 2010 Risks of carcinogenesis from electromagnetic
radiation and mobile telephony devices. Exp Oncol 32:729- 736.
|
Latest
epidemiological data reveal a significant increase in risk of development of
some types of tumors in chronic (over 10 years) users of mobile phone. It was
detected a significant increase in incidence of brain tumors (glioma,
acoustic neuroma, meningioma), parotid gland tumor, seminoma in long- term
users of mobile phone, especially in cases of ipsilateral use (case-control
odds ratios from 1.3 up to 6.1). Two epidemiological studies have indicated a
significant increase of cancer incidence in people living close to the mobile
telephony base station as compared with the population from distant area.
These data raise a question of adequacy of modern safety limits of
electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure for humans. For today the limits were
based solely on the conception of thermal mechanism of biological effects of
RF/MW radiation. Meantime the latest experimental data indicate the
significant metabolic changes in living cell under the low-intensive (non-
thermal) EMR exposure. Among reproducible biological effects of low-intensive
MWs are reactive oxygen species overproduction, heat shock proteins
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
32
|
|
expression,
DNA damages, apoptosis. Practical steps must be done for reasonable
limitation of excessive EMR exposure, along with the implementation of new
safety limits of mobile telephony devices radiation, and new technological
decisions, which would take out the source of radiation from human brain.
|
|
|
[85]
Carpenter DO. 2010 Electromagnetic fields and cancer: the cost of doing
nothing. Rev Environ Health 25:75-80.
|
Concern
of health hazards from EMFs has increased as the use of cell phones and other
wireless devices has grown in all segments of society, especially among
children. While there has been strong evidence for an association between
leukemia and residential or occupational exposure to ELF EMFs for many years,
the standards in existence are not sufficiently stringent to protect from an
increased risk of cancer. For RF EMFs, standards are set at levels designed
to avoid tissue heating, in spite of convincing evidence of adverse
biological effects at intensities too low to cause significant heating.
Recent studies demonstrate elevations in rates of brain cancer and acoustic
neuroma only on the side of the head where individuals used their cell phone.
Individuals who begin exposure at younger ages are more vulnerable. These
data indicate that the existing standards for radiofrequency exposure are not
adequate. While there are many unanswered questions, the cost of doing
nothing will result in an increasing number of people, many of them young,
developing cancer.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[86]
Giuliani L, Soffritti M (Eds). 2010 NON- THERMAL EFFECTS AND MECHANISMS OF
INTERACTION BETWEEN ELECTROMAGNETI C FIELDS AND LIVING MATTER, RAMAZZINI
INSTITUTE EUR. J. ONCOL. LIBRARY Volume 5, National Institute for the Study
and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases “Bernardino Ramazzini”
Bologna, Italy 2010, 400 page monograph.
|
Contains
entire articles on: 1. Influence of mobile phone radiation on cognitive
function. 2. Impact of DECT cordless phone radiation on heart rate
variability and on the autonomic nervous system. 3 & 4. Two articles on
the impact of radiofrequency radiation on the blood-brain barrier. 5 & 6.
Two articles on microwave/radiofrequency radiation and cancer causation. 7.
Epidemiological studies of EMF impact on human reproduction.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[87]
Khurana, V. G., Hardell, L., Everaert,
|
We
identified a total of 10 epidemiological studies that assessed for putative
health effects of mobile phone
|
Nothing.
Review is not
|
33
|
J.,
Bortkiewicz, A., Carlberg, M., Ahonen, M. 2010 Epidemiological evidence for a
health risk from mobile phone base stations. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health
16, 263-267.
|
base
stations (cell phone antennae). Seven of these studies explored the
association between base station proximity and neurobehavioral effects and
three investigated cancer. We found that eight of the 10 studies reported
increased prevalence of adverse neurobehavioral symptoms or cancer in
populations living at distances < 500 meters from base stations. None of
the studies reported exposure above accepted international guidelines,
suggesting that current guidelines may be inadequate in protecting the health
of human populations. We believe that comprehensive epidemiological studies
of long-term mobile phone base station exposure are urgently required to more
definitively understand its health impact.
|
cited
and not discussed.
|
|
[88]
Levitt, B. B., Lai, H. 2010. Biological effects from exposure to
electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell tower base stations and other
antenna arrays. Environ. Rev. 18, 369-395. doi.org/10.1139/A10- 018
|
Both
anecdotal reports and some epidemiology studies, reviewed in this study, have
found headaches, skin rashes, sleep disturbances, depression, decreased
libido, increased rates of suicide, concentration problems, dizziness, memory
changes, increased risk of cancer, tremors, and other neurophysiological
effects in populations near base stations. Cardiac effects were also
reported. Symptoms reported may be classic microwave sickness, first
described in 1978. Nonionizing electromagnetic fields are among the fastest
growing forms of environmental pollution. Some extrapolations can be made
from research other than epidemiology regarding biological effects from
exposures at levels far below current exposure guidelines.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[89]
Kang N, Shang XJ, Huang YF. 2010 [Impact of cell phone radiation on male
reproduction]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 16:1027-1030.
|
With
the popularized use cell phones, more and more concern has been aroused over
the effects of their radiation on human health, particularly on male
reproduction. Cell phone radiation may cause structural and functional
injuries of the testis, alteration of semen parameters, reduction of
epididymal sperm concentration and decline of male fertility. This article presents
an overview on the impact of cell phone radiation on male reproduction.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[90]
Yakymenko, I., Sidorik, E., Kyrylenko, S., Chekhun, V. 2011. Long-term
exposure to microwave radiation provokes cancer growth: evidences from radars
and mobile communication systems. Exp. Oncol. 33(2), 62-70.
|
The
carcinogenic effect of MW irradiation is typically manifested after long term
(up to 10 years and more) exposure. Nevertheless, even a year of operation of
a powerful base transmitting station for mobile communication reportedly
resulted in a dramatic increase of cancer incidence among population living
nearby. In addition, model studies in rodents unveiled a significant increase
in carcinogenesis after 17-24 months of MW exposure both in tumor-prone and
intact animals. To that, such metabolic changes, as overproduction of
reactive oxygen species, 8-hydroxi- 2-deoxyguanosine formation, or ornithine
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
34
|
|
decarboxylase
activation under exposure to low intensity MW confirm a stress impact of this
factor on living cells. We also address the issue of standards for assessment
of biological effects of irradiation. It is now becoming increasingly evident
that assessment of biological effects of non-ionizing radiation based on
physical (thermal) approach used in recommendations of current regulatory
bodies, including the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines, requires urgent reevaluation. We conclude
that recent data strongly point to the need for re-elaboration of the current
safety limits for non-ionizing radiation using recently obtained knowledge.
We also emphasize that the everyday exposure of both occupational and general
public to MW radiation should be regulated based on a precautionary
principles which imply maximum restriction of excessive exposure.
|
|
|
[91]
Yakimenko IL, Sidorik EP, Tsybulin AS. 2011 [Metabolic changes in cells under
electromagnetic radiation of mobile communication systems]. Ukr Biokhim Zh
(1999). 2011 Mar- Apr;83(2):20-28.
|
Review
is devoted to the analysis of biological effects of microwaves. The results
of last years' researches indicated the potential risks of long-term
low-level microwaves exposure for human health. The analysis of metabolic
changes in living cells under the exposure of microwaves from mobile
communication systems indicates that this factor is stressful for cells.
Among the reproducible effects of low-level microwave radiation are overexpression
of heat shock proteins, an increase of reactive oxygen species level, an
increase of intracellular Ca2+, damage of DNA, inhibition of DNA reparation,
and induction of apoptosis. Extracellular-signal-regulated kinases ERK and
stress- related kinases p38MAPK are involved in metabolic changes. Analysis
of current data suggests that the concept of exceptionally thermal mechanism
of biological effects of microwaves is not correct. In turn, this raises the
question of the need to revaluation of modern electromagnetic standards based
on thermal effects of non-ionizing radiation on biological systems.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[92]
Gye MC, Park CJ. 2012 Effect of electromagnetic field exposure on the
reproductive system. Clin Exp Reprod Med 39:1-9. doi.org/10.5653/cerm.
2012.39.1.1
. Clin Exp Reprod Med 39:1-9. doi.org/10.5653/cerm. |
The
safety of human exposure to an ever-increasing number and diversity of
electromagnetic field (EMF) sources both at work and at home has become a
public health issue. To date, many in
vivo and in vitro studies have
revealed that EMF exposure can alter cellular homeostasis, endocrine
function, reproductive function, and fetal development in animal systems.
Reproductive parameters reported to be altered by EMF exposure include male
germ cell death, the estrous cycle, reproductive endocrine hormones,
reproductive organ weights, sperm motility, early embryonic development, and
pregnancy success. At
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
35
|
2012.39.1.1
|
the
cellular level, an increase in free radicals and [Ca(2+)]i may mediate the
effect of EMFs and lead to cell growth inhibition, protein misfolding, and
DNA breaks. The effect of EMF exposure on reproductive function differs
according to frequency and wave, strength (energy), and duration of exposure.
In the present review, the effects of EMFs on reproductive function are
summarized according to the types of EMF, wave type, strength, and duration
of exposure at cellular and organism levels.
|
|
|
[93] La Vignera S, Condorelli RA, Vicari E,
D'Agata R, Calogero AE. 2012 Effects of the exposure to mobile phones on male
reproduction: a review of the literature. J Androl 33:350-356.
|
The
use of mobile phones is now widespread. A great debate exists about the possible
damage that the radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) emitted by
mobile phones exerts on different organs and apparatuses. The aim of this
article was to review the existing literature exploring the effects of RF-EMR
on the male reproductive function in experimental animals and humans. Studies
have been conducted in rats, mice, and rabbits using a similar design based
upon mobile phone RF exposure for variable lengths of time. Together, the
results of these studies have shown that RF-EMR decreases sperm count and
motility and increases oxidative stress. In humans, 2 different experimental
approaches have been followed: one has explored the effects of RF-EMR
directly on spermatozoa and the other has evaluated the sperm parameters in
men using or not using mobile phones. The results showed that human
spermatozoa exposed to RF-EMR have decreased motility, morphometric
abnormalities, and increased oxidative stress, whereas men using mobile
phones have decreased sperm concentration, decreased motility (particularly
rapid progressive motility), normal morphology, and decreased viability.
These abnormalities seem to be directly related to the duration of mobile
phone use.
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
|
[94]
Biointiative Working Group, David Carpenter and Cindy Sage (eds). 2012
Bioinitiative 2012: A rationale for biologically-based exposure standards for
electromagnetic radiation. http://www.bioinitiativ
e.org/participants/why- we-care/
|
Sections
on EMF effects:
SECTION 4: EVIDENCE FOR INADEQUACY OF THE STANDARDS SECTION 5: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON GENE AND PROTEIN EXPRESSION SECTION 6: EVIDENCE FOR GENOTOXIC EFFECTS – RFR AND ELF DNA DAMAGE SECTION 7: EVIDENCE FOR STRESS RESPONSE (STRESS PROTEINS) SECTION 8: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON IMMUNE FUNCTION SECTION 9: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON NEUROLOGY AND BEHAVIOR SECTION 10: EFFECTS OF EMF FROM WIRELESS COMMUNICATION UPON THE |
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
36
|
|
BLOOD-BRAIN
BARRIER
SECTION 11: EVIDENCE FOR BRAIN TUMORS AND ACOUSTIC NEUROMAS SECTION 12: EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIA) SECTION 13: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON MELATONIN: ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE AND BREAST CANCER SECTION 14: EVIDENCE FOR BREAST CANCER PROMOTION SECTION 15: EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION BY THE MODULATING SIGNAL SECTION 16: PLAUSIBLE GENETIC AND METABOLIC MECHANISMS FOR BIOEFFECTS OF VERY WEAK ELF MAGNETIC FIELDS ON LIVING TISSUE SECTION 17 EVIDENCE BASED ON EMF MEDICAL THERAPEUTICS SECTION 18: FERTILITY AND REPRODUCTION EFFECTS OF EMF SECTION 19: FETAL AND NEONATAL EFFECTS OF EMF SECTION 20: FINDINGS IN AUTISM CONSISTENT WITH EMF AND RFR |
|
|
[4]
Pall, ML. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated
calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med
17:958-965. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088.
|
The
direct targets of extremely low and microwave frequency range electromagnetic
fields (EMFs) in producing non-thermal effects have not been clearly
established. However, studies in the literature, reviewed here, provide substantial
support for such direct targets. Twenty-three studies have shown that
voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs) produce these and other EMF effects,
such that the L-type or other VGCC blockers block or greatly lower diverse
EMF effects. Furthermore, the voltage-gated properties of these channels may
provide biophysically plausible mechanisms for EMF biological effects.
Downstream responses of such EMF exposures may be mediated through Ca(2+)
/calmodulin stimulation of nitric oxide synthesis. Potentially,
physiological/therapeutic responses may be largely as a result of nitric
oxide-cGMP-protein kinase G pathway stimulation. A well-studied example of
such an apparent therapeutic response, EMF stimulation of bone growth,
appears to work along this pathway. However, pathophysiological responses to
EMFs may be as a result of nitric oxide-peroxynitrite-oxidative stress
pathway of action. A single such well- documented example, EMF induction of
DNA single- strand breaks in cells, as measured by alkaline comet assays, is
reviewed here. Such single-strand breaks are
|
This
was cited. Sole statement is: “(see Pall, 2013 for a review of studies
suggesting effects through voltage-gated calcium channels).” None of the
important implications listed on the left are used in any way in the rest of
the SCENIHR 2015 document See text for further discussion..
|
37
|
|
known
to be produced through the action of this pathway. Data on the mechanism of
EMF induction of such breaks are limited; what data are available support
this proposed mechanism. Other Ca(2+) - mediated regulatory changes,
independent of nitric oxide, may also have roles. This article reviews, then,
a substantially supported set of targets, VGCCs, whose stimulation produces
non-thermal EMF responses by humans/higher animals with downstream effects
involving Ca(2+) /calmodulin-dependent nitric oxide increases, which may
explain therapeutic and pathophysiological effects.
|
|
|
[95] Nazıroğlu
M, Yüksel M, Köse SA, Özkaya MO. 2013 Recent reports of Wi- Fi and mobile
phone- induced radiation on oxidative stress and reproductive signaling
pathways in females and males. J Membr Biol 246:869-875.
|
The
aim of the study was to discuss the mechanisms and risk factors of EMR
changes on reproductive functions and membrane oxidative biology in females
and males. It was reported that even chronic exposure to EMR did not increase
the risk of reproductive functions such as increased levels of neoantigens
abort. However, the results of some studies indicate that EMR induced
endometriosis and inflammation and decreased the number of follicles in the
ovarium or uterus of rats. In studies with male rats, exposure caused
degeneration in the seminiferous tubules, reduction in the number of Leydig
cells and testosterone production as well as increases in luteinizing hormone
levels and apoptotic cells. In some cases of male and female infertility,
increased levels of oxidative stress and lipid peroxidation and decreased
values of antioxidants such as melatonin, vitamin E and glutathione
peroxidase were reported in animals exposed to EMR. In conclusion, the
results of current studies indicate that oxidative stress from exposure to
Wi-Fi and mobile phone-induced EMR is a significant mechanism affecting
female and male reproductive systems.
|
This
was listed on p.285 under Literature identified but not cited. SCENIHR
chose not to cite or discuss this paper, although they had identified it.
|
|
[96]
Ledoigt G, Belpomme D. 2013 Cancer induction molecular pathways and HF-EMF
irradiation. Adv Biol Chem 3:177-186.
|
The
response of cells to different types of electromagnetic fields can be induced
by low-level (athermal) high frequency (HF) electromagnetic fields (EMFs)
exposure associated with mobile phone technologies.
There are many examples of biological effects involving the epigenome. EMFs could trigger protein activation mediated by ligands, such as Ca2+, that alter the conformation of binding proteins, especially the NADPH plasmic membrane oxidase, so inducing increased formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) that may alter proteomic functions. Classical anti- apoptotic and procarcinogenic signaling pathways that are commonly found activated in human malignancies and in inflammation mainly involve the tran- |
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
38
|
|
scription
factor NF-êB.
The microenvironment that exists during chronic inflammation can contribute
to cancer progression. The data support the proposition that long term HF-EMF
exposure associated with improper use of cell phones can potentially cause
cancer.
|
|
|
[97]
Hardell L, Carlberg M. 2013 Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for
evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with
use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health 28:97- 106. doi:
10.1515/reveh-2013- 0006.
|
BACKGROUND:
Wireless phones, i.e., mobile phones and cordless phones, emit radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) when used. An increased risk of brain tumors
is a major concern. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at
the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated the carcinogenic effect to
humans from RF-EMF in May 2011. It was concluded that RF-EMF is a group 2B,
i.e., a "possible", human carcinogen. Bradford Hill gave a
presidential address at the British Royal Society of Medicine in 1965 on the
association or causation that provides a helpful framework for evaluation of
the brain tumor risk from RF-EMF.
METHODS:All nine issues on causation according to Hill were evaluated. Regarding wireless phones, only studies with long-term use were included. In addition, laboratory studies and data on the incidence of brain tumors were considered. RESULTS: The criteria on strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, and biologic gradient for evidence of increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma were fulfilled. Additional evidence came from plausibility and analogy based on laboratory studies. Regarding coherence, several studies show increasing incidence of brain tumors, especially in the most exposed area. Support for the experiment came from antioxidants that can alleviate the generation of reactive oxygen species involved in biologic effects, although a direct mechanism for brain tumor carcinogenesis has not been shown. In addition, the finding of no increased risk for brain tumors in subjects using the mobile phone only in a car with an external antenna is supportive evidence. Hill did not consider all the needed nine viewpoints to be essential requirements. CONCLUSION:Based on the Hill criteria, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered to be caused by RF-EMF emissions from wireless phones and regarded as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised. |
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed. The Hill criteria are THE well-
accepted way of analyzing biological plausiblility of epidemiologic al
evidence.
It is unacceptable for SCENIHR not to consider this review when attempting to analyze epidemiologic al evidence of EMF cancer causation. |
|
[98]
Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2013 Use of
|
The
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) at WHO evaluation of the
carcinogenic effect of RF-EMF on humans took place during a 24-31 May
|
This
paper is cited and discussed
|
39
|
mobile
phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and
acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology 2013;20(2):85-110.
|
2011
meeting at Lyon in France. The Working Group consisted of 30 scientists and
categorised the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones, and
from other devices that emit similar non- ionising electromagnetic fields
(RF-EMF), as Group 2B, i.e., a 'possible', human carcinogen. The decision on
mobile phones was based mainly on the Hardell group of studies from Sweden
and the IARC Interphone study. We give an overview of current epidemiological
evidence for an increased risk for brain tumours including a meta-analysis of
the Hardell group and Interphone results for mobile phone use. Results for
cordless phones are lacking in Interphone. The meta-analysis gave for glioma
in the most exposed part of the brain, the temporal lobe, odds ratio (OR)=1.71,
95% confidence interval (CI)=1.04-2.81 in the ≥10 years (>10 years in the
Hardell group) latency group. Ipsilateral mobile phone use ≥1640h in total
gave OR=2.29, 95% CI=1.56-3.37. The results for meningioma were OR=1.25, 95%
CI=0.31-4.98 and OR=1.35, 95% CI=0.81-2.23, respectively. Regarding acoustic
neuroma ipsilateral mobile phone use in the latency group ≥10 years gave
OR=1.81, 95% CI=0.73- 4.45. For ipsilateral cumulative use ≥1640h OR=2.55,
95% CI=1.50-4.40 was obtained. Also use of cordless phones increased the risk
for glioma and acoustic neuroma in the Hardell group studies. Survival of
patients with glioma was analysed in the Hardell group studies yielding in
the >10 years latency period hazard ratio (HR)=1.2, 95% CI=1.002-1.5 for
use of wireless phones. This increased HR was based on results for
astrocytoma WHO grade IV (glioblastoma multiforme). Decreased HR was found
for low-grade astrocytoma, WHO grades I-II, which might be caused by RF-EMF
exposure leading to tumour-associated symptoms and earlier detection and
surgery with better prognosis. Some studies show increasing incidence of
brain tumours whereas other studies do not. It is concluded that one should
be careful using incidence data to dismiss results in analytical
epidemiology. The IARC carcinogenic classification does not seem to have had
any significant impact on governments' perceptions of their responsibilities
to protect public health from this widespread source of radiation.
|
very
briefly. See text for discussion.
|
|
[99]
Davis DL, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y. 2013 Swedish review
strengthens grounds for concluding that
|
Mobile
phones are two-way microwave radios that also emit low levels of
electromagnetic radiation. Inconsistent results have been published on
potential risks of brain tumors tied with mobile phone use as a result of
important methodological differences in study design and statistical power.
Some studies have
|
Nothing.
Review is not cited and not discussed.
|
40
|
radiation
from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen.
Pathophysiology 20:123-129.
|
examined
mobile phone users for periods of time that are too short to detect an
increased risk of brain cancer, while others have misclassified exposures by
placing those with exposures to microwave radiation from cordless phones in
the control group, or failing to attribute such exposures in the cases. In
2011, the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on
Cancer (IARC) advised that electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone and
other wireless devices constitutes a "possible human carcinogen,"
2B. Recent analyses not considered in the IARC review that take into account
these methodological shortcomings from a number of authors find that brain
tumor risk is significantly elevated for those who have used mobile phones
for at least a decade. Studies carried out in Sweden indicate that those who
begin using either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20 have
greater than a fourfold increased risk of ipsilateral glioma. Given that
treatment for a single case of brain cancer can cost between $100,000 for
radiation therapy alone and up to $1 million depending on drug costs,
resources to address this illness are already in short supply and not
universally available in either developing or developed countries.
Significant additional shortages in oncology services are expected at the
current growth of cancer. No other environmental carcinogen has produced
evidence of an increased risk in just one decade. Empirical data have shown a
difference in the dielectric properties of tissues as a function of age,
mostly due to the higher water content in children's tissues. High resolution
computerized models based on human imaging data suggest that children are
indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave
frequencies. If the increased brain cancer risk found in young users in these
recent studies does apply at the global level, the gap between supply and
demand for oncology services will continue to widen. Many nations, phone
manufacturers, and expert groups, advise prevention in light of these
concerns by taking the simple precaution of "distance" to minimize
exposures to the brain and body. We note that brain cancer is the proverbial
"tip of the iceberg"; the rest of the body is also showing effects
other than cancers.
|
|
Of these 22
reviews, 19 are found in the PubMed database, the most widely used medical
database in the world, so there is no excuse for not discussing these 19, but
only two of them were discussed (see below). With regard to the eight different
types of effects that I consider established non-thermal EMF effects, each of
them were reviewed in multiple studies described in Table 3 as follows: Cancer
12 reviews [78,82,83-87,90,94,96-98]; Oxidative stress/free
41
radicals 8
reviews [79,80,84,90,92,-96]; Cellular DNA damage 10 review [4,79,80-82,84,90-
92,94]; Apoptosis/cell death 3 reviews [79,82,91]; Lowered fertility 7 reviews
[80,86,89,92-95]; Neurological/neuropsychiatric effects 4 reviews [80,87,88,94];
Calcium overload 4 reviews [4,91,92,96]; Endocrine effects 2 reviews [92,95].
It is not clear why so many important reviews on effects are not found in
SCENIHR 2015 [73]. What is perhaps surprising, is that these reviews also
document many other effects, none of which are clearly acknowledged by SCENIHR.
These include stress responses; breakdown of the blood-brain barrier; fetal and
neonatal effects; therapeutic effects; Alzheimer’s disease; increased nitric
oxide; endometriosis; changes in protein levels (proteomics) and changes in
gene expression; NF-kappaB elevation; increased suicide; changes in protein
kinase activity including ERK and p32MAPK; mechanisms associated with oxidative
stress including elevated NADPH/NADH oxidase increased lipid peroxidation and
decreased enzymatic antioxidant activity, increased ornithine decarboxylase;
and autism. It can be seen from this that the SCENIHR 2015 document seems to be
systematically avoiding considering substantial bodies of evidence regarding a
very large range of repeatedly reported EMF effects, each of which challenges
the SCENIHR position that no effects are established.
Three specific issues regarding apparent cancer causation by EMFs need to be discussed here. Five of these reviews each review a body of evidence showing that cancer rates are higher on the side of the head where people use their cell phones and cordless phones, the ipsilateral side, as opposed to the opposite side of the head, called the contralateral side [78,84,85,98,99]. These are very important studies because they are not likely to be affccted by how complete the reporting data are, or whether there are affects produced by chemicals, ionizing radiation or other EMFs; each of these factors should not be specific for the side of the head impacted. The contralateral side of the head serves as a control that can be compared with the ipsilateral side of the head. What is strange about the SCENIHR 2015 document, is that it avoids discussing all of these data presented in these five reviews. That is even true for [98] which is discussed very briefly in SCENIHR 2015. Only one body of evidence from [98] is discussed in SCENIHR 2015 but several others are not discussed, including the two bodies of evidence which each find statistically significant rises in ipsilateral cancer as compared with contralateral cancer. The ipsilateral findings produce very strong arguments that cell phones and/or cordless phones do cause brain cancer in humans. The best evidence suggests that both cell phones and cordless phones do cause cancer. What does SCENIHR 2015 [73] say about ipsilateral cancer? [73] states, on p. 74 that “ORs for glioma were higher in subjects who reported phone use mostly on the same side of the head (ipsilateral) as their tumour than for use on the opposite side (contralateral). For meningioma, ORs for temporal lobe tumours were slightly lower than for other locations, while a similar pattern as for glioma of higher ipsilateral ORs compared to contralateral ORs was seen.” On p. 76, SCENIHR states that “Afterwards, in an attempt to quantify the relationship, Interphone and the Hardell studies were analysed in a meta-analytical approach (Hardell et al., 2013a), an OR of 1.71 (CI: 1.04-2.81) was found for temporal glioma among ipsilateral mobile phone users of 10+ years of use....” On p. 77, regarding a study designed to assess the reliability of self-reported cell phone usage in young brain cancer patients, a study not designed to assess ipsilateral effects in patients whose cancer cases may likely have been caused by cell phone usage, the SCENIHR 2015 document states “No clear patterns were seen when comparing ipsilateral and contralateral use.” That is not surprising. It can be seen from this that 2 out of 3 studies that SCENIHR discussed argue that there is increased ipsilateral cancer and argue therefore that cell phones or cordless phones do cause cancer. Furthermore, they ignore large amounts of data, cited in [78,84,85,98,99] that provide further support for this view. When SCENIHR wishes to take the opposite position from that taken in these reviews, it is incumbent on SCENIHR to cite them, to discuss the data and opinion presented in those reviews and then and only then can they argue for their position. Having failed to do those things, SCENIHR loses credibility in any argument that they are doing what they can to protect our
Three specific issues regarding apparent cancer causation by EMFs need to be discussed here. Five of these reviews each review a body of evidence showing that cancer rates are higher on the side of the head where people use their cell phones and cordless phones, the ipsilateral side, as opposed to the opposite side of the head, called the contralateral side [78,84,85,98,99]. These are very important studies because they are not likely to be affccted by how complete the reporting data are, or whether there are affects produced by chemicals, ionizing radiation or other EMFs; each of these factors should not be specific for the side of the head impacted. The contralateral side of the head serves as a control that can be compared with the ipsilateral side of the head. What is strange about the SCENIHR 2015 document, is that it avoids discussing all of these data presented in these five reviews. That is even true for [98] which is discussed very briefly in SCENIHR 2015. Only one body of evidence from [98] is discussed in SCENIHR 2015 but several others are not discussed, including the two bodies of evidence which each find statistically significant rises in ipsilateral cancer as compared with contralateral cancer. The ipsilateral findings produce very strong arguments that cell phones and/or cordless phones do cause brain cancer in humans. The best evidence suggests that both cell phones and cordless phones do cause cancer. What does SCENIHR 2015 [73] say about ipsilateral cancer? [73] states, on p. 74 that “ORs for glioma were higher in subjects who reported phone use mostly on the same side of the head (ipsilateral) as their tumour than for use on the opposite side (contralateral). For meningioma, ORs for temporal lobe tumours were slightly lower than for other locations, while a similar pattern as for glioma of higher ipsilateral ORs compared to contralateral ORs was seen.” On p. 76, SCENIHR states that “Afterwards, in an attempt to quantify the relationship, Interphone and the Hardell studies were analysed in a meta-analytical approach (Hardell et al., 2013a), an OR of 1.71 (CI: 1.04-2.81) was found for temporal glioma among ipsilateral mobile phone users of 10+ years of use....” On p. 77, regarding a study designed to assess the reliability of self-reported cell phone usage in young brain cancer patients, a study not designed to assess ipsilateral effects in patients whose cancer cases may likely have been caused by cell phone usage, the SCENIHR 2015 document states “No clear patterns were seen when comparing ipsilateral and contralateral use.” That is not surprising. It can be seen from this that 2 out of 3 studies that SCENIHR discussed argue that there is increased ipsilateral cancer and argue therefore that cell phones or cordless phones do cause cancer. Furthermore, they ignore large amounts of data, cited in [78,84,85,98,99] that provide further support for this view. When SCENIHR wishes to take the opposite position from that taken in these reviews, it is incumbent on SCENIHR to cite them, to discuss the data and opinion presented in those reviews and then and only then can they argue for their position. Having failed to do those things, SCENIHR loses credibility in any argument that they are doing what they can to protect our
42
health. The
same is true for all of the other effects where they similarly fail to cite
large numbers of obviously relevant reviews, each arguing for various health
effects produced by EMF exposures.
Two other findings from these reviews are important in assessing EMF cancer causation. Refs. [85 and 99] each provide evidence that younger people are more susceptible to cancer causation by EMFs than are adults. SCENIHR takes the opposite view but cannot argue credibly without considering those who differ. The other finding found in [97] is that the epidemiological evidence on cancer causation by microwave frequency EMFs satisfies most of the Hill criteria. The Hill criteria are THE well-accepted criteria that allow one to distinguish chance associations from causal roles in epidemiology. Because epidemiology is the main basis for the arguments that SCENIHR makes against the conclusion that EMFs cause cancer, it is essential that SCENIHR carefully examine the Hill criteria. They fail to do so. They also ignored this study where these criteria were examined and where it was concluded that the majority of the Hill criteria argue that EMFs do cause cancer. This again, undercuts any claim that SCENIHR has carefully considered critically important findings with regard to EMF health effects.
There are several places in the SCENIHR 2015 document, where they state that no mechanisms have been identified by which claimed effects of EMFs can be produced. These can be found by searching the SCENIHR 2015 document using “mechanism” as the search term. However [4] clearly states that the VGCC activation mechanism triggered by EMF exposure can produce, via this mechanism, cellular DNA damaging effects, can produce therapeutic effects and can produce oxidative stress effects. It can be seen, therefore that SCENIHR has no problem making repeated claims that have been falsified by information that they presumably have examined. It also can be seen from this, that even in the cases where SCENIHR cites and very briefly discusses a review that disagrees with them, one can have no assurance that the information is used by SCENIHR in its assessment of health impacts. The causation of cellular DNA damage by EMFs acting via VGCC activation also has important implications with regard to cancer causation. Because almost all cases of cancer start with mutagenic DNA damage in the cell destined to become a cancer cell, this shows how EMFs can initiate the process of carcinogenesis.
It is clear that the SCENIHR 2015 document neither cited nor discussed 20 out of 22 reviews that have documented non-thermal effects of EMFs. In addition, the most important findings of the two that were cited in the document were ignored in the document as well. Therefore SCENIHR has systematically avoided discussing the most important implications of reviews that fell into the time frame they purport to have studied and disagreed with SCENIHR on the existence of important effects. The question can be raised, however, as to whether the SCENIHR has done a better job in its consideration of primary literature citations. To answer that question, I am using a database of important primary literature, regarding effects of cell phone EMFs that we are commonly exposed to.
23 Genuine Cell Phone Studies, Each of Which Should Be Discussed in SCENIHR 2015, 20 of Which Are Not.
Panagopoulos et al [100] showed that whereas 46 out of 48 studies on genuine cell phone radiation showed health-related effects, the majority of studies on simulated cell phones reported no statistically significant effects. They [100] interpreted the difference of results as having been caused by the lowered pulsation rate of the “simulated” cell phone exposures. While I am sure that is part of the explanation, there may be other possible differences that are discussed later in this chapter.
Two other findings from these reviews are important in assessing EMF cancer causation. Refs. [85 and 99] each provide evidence that younger people are more susceptible to cancer causation by EMFs than are adults. SCENIHR takes the opposite view but cannot argue credibly without considering those who differ. The other finding found in [97] is that the epidemiological evidence on cancer causation by microwave frequency EMFs satisfies most of the Hill criteria. The Hill criteria are THE well-accepted criteria that allow one to distinguish chance associations from causal roles in epidemiology. Because epidemiology is the main basis for the arguments that SCENIHR makes against the conclusion that EMFs cause cancer, it is essential that SCENIHR carefully examine the Hill criteria. They fail to do so. They also ignored this study where these criteria were examined and where it was concluded that the majority of the Hill criteria argue that EMFs do cause cancer. This again, undercuts any claim that SCENIHR has carefully considered critically important findings with regard to EMF health effects.
There are several places in the SCENIHR 2015 document, where they state that no mechanisms have been identified by which claimed effects of EMFs can be produced. These can be found by searching the SCENIHR 2015 document using “mechanism” as the search term. However [4] clearly states that the VGCC activation mechanism triggered by EMF exposure can produce, via this mechanism, cellular DNA damaging effects, can produce therapeutic effects and can produce oxidative stress effects. It can be seen, therefore that SCENIHR has no problem making repeated claims that have been falsified by information that they presumably have examined. It also can be seen from this, that even in the cases where SCENIHR cites and very briefly discusses a review that disagrees with them, one can have no assurance that the information is used by SCENIHR in its assessment of health impacts. The causation of cellular DNA damage by EMFs acting via VGCC activation also has important implications with regard to cancer causation. Because almost all cases of cancer start with mutagenic DNA damage in the cell destined to become a cancer cell, this shows how EMFs can initiate the process of carcinogenesis.
It is clear that the SCENIHR 2015 document neither cited nor discussed 20 out of 22 reviews that have documented non-thermal effects of EMFs. In addition, the most important findings of the two that were cited in the document were ignored in the document as well. Therefore SCENIHR has systematically avoided discussing the most important implications of reviews that fell into the time frame they purport to have studied and disagreed with SCENIHR on the existence of important effects. The question can be raised, however, as to whether the SCENIHR has done a better job in its consideration of primary literature citations. To answer that question, I am using a database of important primary literature, regarding effects of cell phone EMFs that we are commonly exposed to.
23 Genuine Cell Phone Studies, Each of Which Should Be Discussed in SCENIHR 2015, 20 of Which Are Not.
Panagopoulos et al [100] showed that whereas 46 out of 48 studies on genuine cell phone radiation showed health-related effects, the majority of studies on simulated cell phones reported no statistically significant effects. They [100] interpreted the difference of results as having been caused by the lowered pulsation rate of the “simulated” cell phone exposures. While I am sure that is part of the explanation, there may be other possible differences that are discussed later in this chapter.
43
Of those 48
genuine cell phone studies, 23 fell into the time frame (Jan. 2009 through Dec.
2013) reviewed in SCENIHR, 2015. Because of the importance of cell phones and
therefore cell phone radiation in our lives, I am using these 23 as a database
of primary literature studies that should all be covered in the SCENIHR 2015
[73] document. How many of these 23 were reviewed and cited in SCENIHR 2015?
The answer is four (17%) and I will discuss how each of them were discussed
below. I have inserted 17 of these into Table 4 below, but six were left out,
because they are easy to summarize. These six are all Drosophila studies, none
of which were discussed in SCENIHR 2015 [73] but are easy to summarize. All six
Drosophila studies were focused on lowered fertility following EMF exposure,
with the majority of these focused on lowered female fertility. Four of the six
found increased apoptosis following cell phone EMF exposaure and four of the
six also found cellular DNA damage following exposure. These are important
because of the similarities of each of these effects to effects found in
mammals. They are also important because they found DNA damage in Drosophila
eggs, whereas mammalian eggs no similar studies have been done because of the
difficulty in doing so. Two of these six Drosophila studies, also identified a
low intensity exposure window which produced much larger effects than did lower
or higher intensities. These exposure windows make it difficult or impossible
to predict EMF effects based on EMF intensities. However, the industry and
industry friendly groups such as SCENIHR repeatedly make such false predictions.
In mammals there are many studies showing DNA damage in sperm following EMF exposure. This DNA damage in germ line cells is particularly importance because of the importance of mutations passed onto progeny. Table 4 summarizes the other 17 genuine cell phone radiation findings that that SCENIHR 2015 [73] should be discussing, 15 of which were not discussed or cited in SCENIHR 2015.
Table 4: Genuine Cell Phone Studies that Fell into the 2009 through 2013 SCENIHR 2015 period
In mammals there are many studies showing DNA damage in sperm following EMF exposure. This DNA damage in germ line cells is particularly importance because of the importance of mutations passed onto progeny. Table 4 summarizes the other 17 genuine cell phone radiation findings that that SCENIHR 2015 [73] should be discussing, 15 of which were not discussed or cited in SCENIHR 2015.
Table 4: Genuine Cell Phone Studies that Fell into the 2009 through 2013 SCENIHR 2015 period
|
Citation studied
|
Cell Phone Effects Reported
|
SCENIHR comments
|
|
1.
Mailankot M, Kunnath AP, Jayalekshmi H, Koduru B, Valsalan R. 2009 Radio
frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) from GSM (0.9/1.8GHz) mobile
phones induces oxidative stress and reduces sperm motility in rats. Clinics
(Sao Paulo) 64:561-565.
|
The
present study was designed to evaluate the effects of RF-EMR from mobile
phones on free radical metabolism and sperm quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Male albino Wistar rats (10-12 weeks old) were exposed to RF-EMR from an
active GSM (0.9/1.8 GHz) mobile phone for 1 hour continuously per day for 28
days. Controls were exposed to a mobile phone without a battery for the same
period. The phone was kept in a cage with a wooden bottom in order to address
concerns that the effects of exposure to the phone could be due to heat
emitted by the phone rather than to RF-EMR alone. Animals were sacrificed 24
hours after the last exposure and tissues of interest were harvested.
RESULTS: One hour of exposure to the phone did not significantly change
facial temperature in either group of rats. No significant difference was
observed in total sperm count between controls and RF-EMR exposed groups.
However, rats exposed to RF-EMR exhibited a significantly reduced percentage
of motile sperm. Moreover, RF-EMR exposure resulted in a significant increase
in lipid peroxidation and low GSH content in the testis and epididymis.
|
Listed
under literature identified but not cited. SCENIHR knew about this paper but
decided not to discuss it.
|
44
|
|
CONCLUSION:
Given the results of the present study, we speculate that RF-EMR from mobile
phones negatively affects semen quality and may impair male fertility.
|
|
|
2. Gul
A, Celebi H, Uğraş S. 2009 The effects of microwave emitted by cellular
phones on ovarian follicles in rats. Arch Gynecol Obstet 280:729-733. doi:
10.1007/s00404-009- 0972-9.
|
The
aim of this study was to investigate whether there were any toxic effects of
microwaves of cellular phones on ovaries in rats. METHODS: In this study, 82
female pups of rats, aged 21 days (43 in the study group and 39 in the
control group) were used. Pregnant rats in the study group were exposed to
mobile phones that were placed beneath the polypropylene cages during the
whole period of pregnancy. The cage was free from all kinds of materials,
which could affect electromagnetic fields. A mobile phone in a standby
position for 11 h and 45 min was turned on to speech position for 15 min
every 12 h and the battery was charged continuously. On the 21st day after
the delivery, the female rat pups were killed and the right ovaries were
removed. The volumes of the ovaries were measured and the number of follicles
in every tenth section was counted.
RESULTS: The analysis revealed that in the study group, the number of follicles was lower than that in the control group. The decreased number of follicles in pups exposed to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine exposure has toxic effects on ovaries. CONCLUSION: We suggest that the microwaves of mobile phones might decrease the number of follicles in rats by several known and, no doubt, countless unknown mechanisms. |
Not
cited and not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
|
3.
Imge EB, Kiliçoğlu B, Devrim E, Cetin R, Durak I. 2010
Effects of mobile phone use on brain tissue from the rat and a possible protective role of vitamin C - a preliminary study. Int J Radiat Biol 86:1044-1049. doi: 10.3109/09553002.20 10.501838. |
To evaluate
effects of mobile phone use on brain tissue and a possible protective role of
vitamin C. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty female rats were divided into four
groups randomly (Control, mobile phone, mobile phone plus vitamin C and,
vitamin C alone). The mobile phone group was exposed to a mobile phone signal
(900 MHz), the mobile phone plus vitamin C group
was exposed to a mobile phone signal (900 MHz)
and treated with vitamin C administered orally (per os). The vitamin C group
was also treated with vitamin C per os for four weeks. Then, the animals were
sacrificed and brain tissues were dissected to be used in the analyses of
malondialdehyde (MDA), antioxidant potential (AOP), superoxide dismutase,
catalase (CAT), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), xanthine oxidase, adenosine
deaminase (ADA) and 5'nucleotidase (5'-NT). RESULTS: Mobile phone use caused
an inhibition in 5'-NT and CAT activities as compared to the control group.
GSH-Px activity and the MDA level were also found to be reduced in the mobile
phone group but not significantly. Vitamin C caused a significant increase in
the activity of GSH-Px and non-significant increase in the activities of
5'-NT,
|
Not
cited and not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
45
|
|
ADA
and CAT enzymes. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that vitamin C may play a
protective role against detrimental effects of mobile phone radiation in
brain tissue.
|
|
|
4.
Sharma VP, Kumar NR. 2010 Changes in honeybee behavior under the influence of
cell phone radiation. Curr Science 98: 1376-1378.
|
Honeybee
behaviour and biology has been affected by electrosmog since these insects
have magnetite in their bodies
which helps them in navigation. There are reports of sudden disappearance of bee populations from honeybee colonies. The reason is still not clear. We have compared the performance of honeybees in cellphone radiation exposed and unexposed colonies. A significant (p < 0.05) decline in colony strength and in the egg laying rate of the queen was observed. The behaviour of exposed foragers was negatively influenced by the exposure, there was neither honey nor pollen in the colony at the end of the experiment. |
Not
cited and not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
|
5.
Vecchio F, Babiloni C, Ferreri F, Buffo P, Cibelli G, Curcio G, van Dijkman
S, Melgari JM, Giambattistelli F, Rossini PM. 2010 Mobile phone emission
modulates inter-hemispheric functional coupling of EEG alpha rhythms in
elderly compared to young subjects. Clin Neurophysiol 121:163-171. doi:
10.1016/j.clinph.2009 .11.002.
|
It has
been reported that GSM electromagnetic fields (GSM-EMFs) of mobile phones
modulate--after a prolonged exposure--inter-hemispheric synchronization of
temporal and frontal resting electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythms in normal
young subjects [Vecchio et al., 2007]. Here we tested the hypothesis that
this effect can vary on physiological aging as a sign of changes in the
functional organization of cortical neural synchronization. METHODS:
Eyes-closed resting EEG data were recorded in 16 healthy elderly subjects and
5 young subjects in the two conditions of the previous reference study. The
GSM device was turned on (45 min) in one condition and was turned off (45
min) in the other condition. Spectral coherence evaluated the
inter-hemispheric synchronization of EEG rhythms at the following bands:
delta (about 2-4 Hz), theta (about 4-6 Hz), alpha 1 (about 6-8 Hz), alpha 2
(about 8-10 Hz), and alpha 3 (about 10-12 Hz). The aging effects were
investigated comparing the inter-hemispheric EEG coherence in the elderly
subjects vs. a young group formed by 15 young subjects (10 young subjects of
the reference study; Vecchio et al., 2007). RESULTS: Compared with the young
subjects, the elderly subjects showed a statistically significant (p<0
.001="" 8-12="" a="" about=""
affect="" aging.="" aging="" alpha=""
and="" as="" changes="" coherence=""
conclusions:="" condition.="" cortical=""
dominant="" during="" eeg=""
evidence="" frontal="" function=""
functional="" further="" gsm-emfs=""
gsm="" hz="" in="" increment=""
inter-hemispheric="" is="" mobile="" neural=""
of="" organization="" phone=""
physiological="" provides="" related=""
results="" rhythms="" significance:=""
span="" study="" suggest=""
synchronization.="" synchronization=""
temporal="" that="" the="" these=""
this="" to="">
|
Was
cited and discussed – see text.
|
|
6.
Kumar NR,
|
The
present study was carried out to find the effect of cell
|
Not
cited
|
46
|
Sangwan
S, Badotra P. 2011 Exposure to cell phone radiations produces biochemical
changes in worker honey bees. Toxicol Int. 2011 Jan;18(1):70-2. doi:
10.4103/0971- 6580.75869.
|
phone
radiations on various biomolecules in the adult workers of Apis mellifera L.
The results of the treated adults were analyzed and compared with the
control. Radiation from the cell phone influences honey bees' behavior and
physiology. There was reduced motor activity of the worker bees on the comb
initially, followed by en masse migration and movement toward "talk
mode" cell phone. The initial quiet period was characterized by rise in
concentration of biomolecules including proteins, carbohydrates and lipids,
perhaps due to stimulation of body mechanism to fight the stressful condition
created by the radiations. At later stages of exposure, there was a slight
decline in the concentration of biomolecules probably because the body had
adapted to the stimulus.
|
and
not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
|
7.
Favre D. 2011 Mobile phone- induced honeybee worker piping. Apidologie
42:270- 279.
|
Electromagnetic
waves originating from mobile phones were tested for potential effects on
honeybee behavior. Mobile phone handsets were placed in the close vicinity of
honeybees. The sound made by the bees was recorded and analyzed. The
audiograms and spectrograms revealed that active mobile phone handsets have a
dramatic impact on the behavior of the bees, namely by inducing the worker
piping signal. In natural conditions, worker piping either announces the
swarming process of the bee colony or is a signal of a disturbed bee colony.
|
Not
cited and not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
|
8.
Cammaerts MC, Debeir O, Cammaerts R. 2011. Changes in Paramecium caudatum
(protozoa) near a switched-on GSM telephone. Electromagn Biol Med. 2011
Mar;30(1):57-66. doi: 10.3109/15368378.20 11.566778.
|
The
protozoan Paramecium caudatum was examined under normal conditions versus aside
a switched-on GSM telephone (900 MHz; 2 Watts). Exposed individuals moved
more slowly and more sinuously than usual. Their physiology was affected:
they became broader, their cytopharynx appeared broader, their pulse vesicles
had difficult in expelling their content outside the cell, their cilia less
efficiently moved, and trichocysts became more visible. All these effects
might result from some bad functioning or damage of the cellular membrane.
The first target of communication electromagnetic waves might thus be the
cellular membrane.
|
Listed
under literature identified but not cited. SCENIHR knew about this paper but
decided not to discuss it.
|
|
9. Çam
ST, Seyhan N. 2012 Single- strand DNA breaks in human hair root cells exposed
to mobile phone radiation. Int J Radiat Biol 88:420- 424. doi:
10.3109/09553002.20 12.666005.
|
To
analyze the short-term effects of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) exposure on
genomic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) of human hair root cells. SUBJECTS AND
METHODS: Hair samples were collected from eight healthy human subjects
immediately before and after using a 900-MHz GSM (Global System for Mobile
Communications) mobile phone for 15 and 30 min. Single-strand DNA breaks of
hair root cells from the samples were determined using the 'comet assay'.
RESUL TS:
The data showed that talking on a mobile phone for 15 or 30 min significantly increased (p < 0.05) single-strand DNA breaks in cells of hair roots close to the phone. Comparing the 15-min and 30-min data using the paired t- |
Not cited
and not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
47
|
|
test
also showed that significantly more damages resulted after 30 min than after
15 min of phone use. CONCLUSIONS: A short-term exposure (15 and 30 min) to
RFR (900-MHz) from a mobile phone caused a significant increase in DNA
single-strand breaks in human hair root cells located around the ear which is
used for the phone calls.
|
|
|
10.
Vecchio F, Tombini M, Buffo P, Assenza G, Pellegrino G, Benvenga A, Babiloni
C, Rossini PM. 2012 Mobile phone emission increases inter- hemispheric
functional coupling of electroencephalograp hic α rhythms in epileptic
patients. Int J Psychophysiol 84:164-171. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.20
12.02.002.
|
It has
been reported that GSM electromagnetic fields (GSM-EMFs) of mobile phones
modulate - after a prolonged exposure - inter-hemispheric synchronization of
temporal and frontal resting electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythms in normal
young and elderly subjects (Vecchio et al., 2007, 2010). Here we tested the
hypothesis that this can be even more evident in epileptic patients, who
typically suffer from abnormal mechanisms governing synchronization of
rhythmic firing of cortical neurons. Eyes-closed resting EEG data were
recorded in ten patients affected by focal epilepsy in real and sham exposure
conditions. These data were compared with those obtained from 15 age-matched
normal subjects of the previous reference studies. The GSM device was turned
on (45 min) in the "GSM" condition and was turned off (45 min) in
the other condition ("sham"). The mobile phone was always
positioned on the left side in both patients and control subjects. Spectral
coherence evaluated the inter-hemispheric synchronization of EEG rhythms at
the following frequency bands: delta (about 2-4 Hz), theta (about 4-6 Hz), alpha1
(about 6-8 Hz), alpha2 (about 8-10 Hz), and alpha3 (about 10-12 Hz). The
effects on the patients were investigated comparing the inter- hemispheric
EEG coherence in the epileptic patients with the control group of subjects
evaluated in the previous reference studies. Compared with the control
subjects, epileptic patients showed a statistically significant higher
inter-hemispheric coherence of temporal and frontal alpha rhythms (about 8-12
Hz) in the GSM than "Sham" condition. These results suggest that
GSM-EMFs of mobile phone may affect inter-hemispheric synchronization of the
dominant (alpha) EEG rhythms in epileptic patients. If confirmed by future
studies on a larger group of epilepsy patients, the modulation of the
inter-hemispheric alpha coherence due to the GSM-EMFs could have clinical
implications and be related to changes in cognitive-motor function.
|
Was
cited and discussed – see text.
|
|
11.
Al-Damegh MA. 2012 Rat testicular impairment induced by electromagnetic
radiation from a conventional cellular
|
OBJECTIVE:
The aim of this study was to investigate the possible effects of
electromagnetic radiation from conventional cellular phone use on the oxidant
and antioxidant status in rat blood and testicular tissue and determine the
possible protective role of vitamins C and E in preventing the detrimental
effects of electromagnetic
|
Listed
under literature identified but not cited.
|
48
|
telephone
and the protective effects of the antioxidants vitamins C and E. Clinics
67:785-792
|
radiation
on the testes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treatment groups were exposed to an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic field plus vitamin C (40 mg/kg/day) or electromagnetic field plus vitamin E (2.7 mg/kg/day). All groups were exposed to the same electromagnetic frequency for 15, 30, and 60 min daily for two weeks. RESULTS: There was a significant increase in the diameter of the seminiferous tubules with a disorganized seminiferous tubule sperm cycle interruption in the electromagnetism-exposed group. The serum and testicular tissue conjugated diene, lipid hydroperoxide, and catalase activities increased 3-fold, whereas the total serum and testicular tissue glutathione and glutathione peroxidase levels decreased 3-5 fold in the electromagnetism-exposed animals. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that the adverse effect of the generated electromagnetic frequency had a negative impact on testicular architecture and enzymatic activity. This finding also indicated the possible role of vitamins C and E in mitigating the oxidative stress imposed on the testes and restoring normality to the testes. |
SCENIHR
knew about this paper but decided not to discuss it.
|
|
12.
Aldad TS, Gan G, Gao X-B, Taylor HS. 2012 Fetal radiofrequency radiation from
800- 1900 MH-rated cellular telephone affects neurodevelopment and behavior
in mice. Scientific Rep 2, article 312.
|
Neurobehavioral
disorders are increasingly prevalent in children, however their etiology is
not well understood. An association between prenatal cellular telephone use
and hyperactivity in children has been postulated, yet the direct effects of
radiofrequency radiation exposure on neurodevelopment remain unknown. Here we
used a mouse model to demonstrate that in-utero radiofrequency exposure from
cellular telephones does affect adult behavior. Mice exposed in-utero were
hyperactive and had impaired memory as determined using the object
recognition, light/dark box and step-down assays. Whole cell patch clamp
recordings of miniature excitatory postsynaptic currents (mEPSCs) revealed
that these behavioral changes were due to altered neuronal developmental
programming. Exposed mice had dose- responsive impaired glutamatergic
synaptic transmission onto layer V pyramidal neurons of the prefrontal
cortex. We present the first experimental evidence of neuropathology due to
in-utero cellular telephone radiation. Further experiments are needed in
humans or non-human primates to determine the risk of exposure during
pregnancy.
|
Was
cited and discussed, see text.
|
|
13.
Liu C, Gao P, Xu SC, Wang Y, Chen CH, He MD, Yu ZP, Zhang L, Zhou Z. 2013
Mobile phone radiation induces mode-dependent
|
A
mouse spermatocyte-derived GC-2 cell line was exposed to a commercial mobile
phone handset once every 20 min in standby, listen, dialed or dialing modes
for 24 h. DNA damage was determined using an alkaline comet assay. RESULTS:
The levels of DNA damage were significantly increased following exposure to
MPR in the listen, dialed and dialing modes. Moreover, there
|
Not
cited and not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
49
|
DNA
damage in a mouse spermatocyte- derived cell line: a protective role of
melatonin. Int J Radiat Biol. 2013. 89: 993-1001. doi: 10.3109/09553002.20
13.811309.
|
were
significantly higher increases in the dialed and dialing modes than in the
listen mode. Interestingly, these results were consistent with the radiation
intensities of these modes. However, the DNA damage effects of MPR in the
dialing mode were efficiently attenuated by melatonin pretreatment.
CONCLUSIONS: These results regarding mode- dependent DNA damage have important implications for the safety of inappropriate mobile phone use by males of reproductive age and also suggest a simple preventive measure: Keeping mobile phones as far away from our body as possible, not only during conversations but during 'dialed' and 'dialing' operation modes. Since the 'dialed' mode is actually part of the standby mode, mobile phones should be kept at a safe distance from our body even during standby operation. Furthermore, the protective role of melatonin suggests that it may be a promising pharmacological candidate for preventing mobile phone use-related reproductive impairments. |
|
|
14.
Koca O, Gökçe AM, Öztürk MI, Ercan F, Yurdakul N, Karaman MI. 2013 Effects of
intensive cell phone (Philips Genic 900) use on the rat kidney tissue. Urol
J. 2013 Spring;10:886-891.
|
To
investigate effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by cell phones
on the rat kidney tissue. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-one male Albino rats
were divided into 3 groups, each comprising 7 rats. Group 1 was exposed to a
cell phone in speech mode for 8 hours/day for 20 days and their kidneys were
removed. Group 2 was exposed to EMR for 20 days and then their kidneys were
removed after an interval of 20 days. Cell phone used in the present study
was Philips Genie 900, which has the highest specific absorption rate on the
market. RESULTS: Light microscopic examination of the kidney tissues obtained
from the first group of rats revealed glomerular damage, dilatation of
Bowman's capsule, formation of large spaces between the tubules, tubular
damage, perivascular edema, and inflammatory cell infiltration. The mean
severity score was 4.64 ± 1.7 in group 1, 4.50 ± 0.8 in group 2, and 0 in
group 3. While there was no significant difference between group 1 and group
2 (P > .05), the mean severity scores of groups 1 and 2 were significantly
higher than that of the control group (P = .001 for each). CONCLUSION:
Considering the damage in rat kidney tissue caused by EMR-emitting cell
phones, high-risk individuals should take protective measures.
|
Not
cited and not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
|
15.
Meo SA, Al Rubeaan K. 2013 Effects of exposure to electromagnetic field
radiation (EMFR) generated by activated mobile
|
Extensive
use of mobile phones has been accompanied by a common public debate about
possible adverse effects on human health. No study has been published so far
to establish any association between the fastest growing innovation of mobile
phone and fasting blood glucose. The aim was to determine the effects of
exposure to electromagnetic field radiation generated by mobile
|
Not
cited and not discussed by SCENIHR.
|
50
|
phones
on fasting blood glucose. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 26:235-241. doi:
10.2478/s13382- 013-0107-1.
|
phones
on fasting blood glucose in Wistar Albino rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40
Male Albino rats (Wistar Strain) were divided into 5 equally numerous groups.
Group A served as the control one, group B received mobile phone radiation
for less than 15 min/day, group C: 15-30 min/day, group D: 31-45 min/day, and
group E: 46-60 min/day for a total period of 3 months. Fasting blood glucose
was determined by using Spectrophotometer and serum insulin by Enzyme-linked
Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA). The Homeostatic Model (HOMA-B) was applied for
the assessment of β-cell function and (HOMA-IR) for resistance to insulin.
RESULTS: Wister Albino rats exposed to mobile phone radiation for longer than
15 min a day for a total period of 3 months had significantly higher fasting
blood glucose (p < 0.015) and serum insulin (p < 0.01) compared to the
control group. HOMA-IR for insulin resistance was significantly increased (p
< 0.003) in the groups that were exposed for 15-30 and 46-60 min/day
compared to the control rats. CONCLUSION:The results of the present study
show an association between long-term exposure to activated mobile phones and
increase in fasting blood glucose and serum insulin in Albino rats.
|
|
|
16.
Tsybulin O, Sidorik E, Brieieva O, Buchynska L, Kyrylenko S, Henshel D,
Yakymenko I. 2013 GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation can either stimulate
or depress early embryogenesis in Japanese quails depending on the duration
of exposure. Int J Radiat Biol 89:756-763. doi: 10.3109/09553002.20
13.791408.
|
Our
study was designed to assess the effects of low intensity radiation of a GSM
(Global System for Mobile communication) 900 MHz cellular phone on early
embryogenesis in dependence on the duration of exposure. MATERIALS AND
METHODS: Embryos of Japanese Quails were exposed in ovo to GSM 900 MHz cellular
phone radiation during initial 38 h of brooding or alternatively during 158 h
(120 h before brooding plus initial 38 h of brooding) discontinuously with 48
sec ON (average power density 0.25 μW/cm(2), specific absorption rate 3
μW/kg) followed by 12 sec OFF intervals. A number of differentiated somites
were assessed microscopically. Possible DNA damage evoked by irradiation was
assessed by an alkaline comet assay. RESULTS: Exposure to radiation from a
GSM 900 MHz cellular phone led to a significantly altered number of
differentiated somites. In embryos irradiated during 38 h the number of
differentiated somites increased (p < 0.001), while in embryos irradiated
during 158 h this number decreased (p < 0.05). The lower duration of
exposure led to a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in a level of DNA
strand breaks in cells of 38-h embryos, while the higher duration of exposure
resulted in a significant (p < 0.001) increase in DNA damage as compared
to the control. CONCLUSION: Effects of GSM 900 MHz cellular phone radiation
on early embryogenesis can be either stimulating or deleterious depending on
the duration of exposure.
|
Listed
under literature identified but not cited. SCENIHR knew about this paper but
decided not to discuss it.
|
51
|
17.
Luo Q, Jiang Y, Jin M, Xu J, Huang HF. 2013 Proteomic analysis on the
alteration of protein expression in the early-stage placental villous tissue
of electromagnetic fields associated with cell phone exposure. Reprod Sci
20:1055- 1061. doi: 10.1177/1933719112 473660.
|
To
explore the possible adverse effects and search for cell phone
electromagnetic field (EMF)-responsive proteins in human early reproduction,
a proteomics approach was employed to investigate the changes in protein
expression profile induced by cell phone EMF in human chorionic tissues of
early pregnancy in vivo. METHODS: Volunteer women about 50 days pregnant were
exposed to EMF at the average absorption rate of 1.6 to 8.8 W/kg for 1 hour
with the irradiation device placed 10 cm away from the umbilicus at the
midline of the abdomen. The changes in protein profile were examined using
2-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE).
RESULTS: Up to 15 spots have yielded significant change at least 2- to 2.5-folds up or down compared to sham- exposed group. Twelve proteins were identified- procollagen-proline, eukaryotic translation elongation factor 1 delta, chain D crystal structure of human vitamin D-binding protein, thioredoxin-like 3, capping protein, isocitrate dehydrogenase 3 alpha, calumenin, Catechol-O- methyltransferase protein, proteinase inhibitor 6 (PI-6; SerpinB6) protein, 3,2-trans-enoyl-CoA isomerase protein, chain B human erythrocyte 2,3- bisphosphoglycerate mutase, and nucleoprotein. CONCLUSION: Cell phone EMF might alter the protein profile of chorionic tissue of early pregnancy, during the most sensitive stage of the embryos. The exposure to EMF may cause adverse effects on cell proliferation and development of nervous system in early embryos. Furthermore, 2-DE coupled with mass spectrometry is a promising approach to elucidate the effects and search for new biomarkers for environmental toxic effects. |
Listed
under literature identified but not cited. SCENIHR knew about this paper but
decided not to discuss it.
|
If you look through the studies described in Table 4, you will see multiple studies in oxidative stress/free radical damage, on changes in tissue structure (sometimes called remodeling), on cellular DNA damage, on male fertility (and also one on female fertility), on behavioral changes and on neurological changes. There is also one study on insulin/type 2 diabetes (hormonal effect). It follows from this that five of the effects that were extensively documented in large numbers of reviews (Chapter 1) are further demonstrated, as being caused be cell phone radiation, in these studies. In addition the tissue remodeling and proteomic changes discussed in Chapter 3 are also further demonstrated here. One question that needs to be raised with regard to SCENIHR is why so many clearly important primary literature studies of cell phone radiation (perhaps the most important source of human microwave irradiation) are not discussed in SCENIHR 2015. I will discuss certain particular articles that I think are particularly important for particular reasons. Subsequently, I will discuss the three articles that SCENIHR does discuss.
One of the more interesting studies not discussed by SCENIHR, is #11 in Table 4. This was published by a woman scientist in Saudi Arabia. What it shows is that 15, 30 or 60 minutes per day of cell phone radiation disrupts the structure of the rat testis and also produces high levels of oxidative stress as shown by measuring 5 different markers of oxidative stress. Such studies have been done for several decades, with oxidative stress having been shown in many different organs
52
following
EMF exposures. What is particularly important in this study is that high levels
of two different antioxidants, vitamin C and vitamin E, were each shown to
produce substantial protection of the testis structure from the EMF effects
while partially normalizing the oxidative stress elevation. What this clearly
shows is that the oxidative stress causes the testis tissue disruption. So we
don’t just have evidence for two effects, testis disruption and oxidative
stress but we have strong evidence that one causes the other. It is exactly
these connections that are essential for the progression of the science!
# 13 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is particularly important. It looks at cell phone radiation DNA damage produced in a mouse spermatocyte-derived cell line. What it finds is that DNA damage is particularly high when the cell phone is in the dialed or dialing mode, as opposed to a listen mode. They also state that the radiation levels in the three modes correspond, at least roughly, to the DNA damage effects seen. They also show that pretreatment with melatonin (which is known to have antioxidant effects) greatly lowers the DNA damage produced by the cell phone EMF exposures. This is similar to the study discussed immediately above because it again shows that one effect, DNA damage is produced by another effect, namely oxidative stress/free radical elevation. You will recall that as discussed in Chapter 2, cellular DNA damage following EMF exposure is produced by the attacks by on the DNA by peroxynitrite derived free radicals. This study provides confirmation for that mechanism.
#14 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. It looks at the impact of cell phone radiation on kidney structure of rats, using six different measures of kidney structure. There were two groups of rats that were exposed to cell phone radiation which were both compared with each other and with normal unexposed control rats. The two exposed groups differed from each other in one group the kidney structure was assessed immediately following the 20 day exposure period. The second exposure group was also exposed for 20 days but was given 20 days subsequently with no exposure to see if the kidney structure spontaneously recovered. There was no recovery seen in the second group, showing that the kidney damage was effectively irreversible. In Chapter 3, several tissue remodeling type effects produced by EMF exposure appeared to be irreversible. Study #14 may add an additional such effect to that list.
#15 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. In this study control (unexposed) rats were compared with rats exposed to cell phone radiation for: less than 15 minutes per day, 15 to 30 minutes per day, 31 to 45 minutes per day or 45 to 60 minutes per day. Rats exposed to over 15 minutes per day of cell phone radiation showed type 2 diabetes onset-like effects, with higher fasting glucose levels and higher serum insulin levels. This appears to be, therefore a study showing important hormone dysfunction. It should be noted that the same research group has found similar changes in people living near cell phone towers [101]. Consequently, this is still another situation where findings in experimental animal studies appear to be directly applicable to humans.
Of the papers that were discussed, it is my opinion that the Aldad et al paper (#12, Table 4) is perhaps the most important. The paper starts out discussing the very large increase in ADHD that we have had in recent years, an increase which suggests that one or more environmental changes must be involved. This paper is from a distinguished laboratory, Hugh Taylor’s laboratory at Yale, and was published in one of the highly respected Nature journals and the paper, at this writing has been cited 89 times, showing a high level of scientific interest in it. The paper showed that prenatal exposure of pregnant mice to cell phone radiation produced three highly statistically significant changes in the adult mice. These were a decrease in measured memory function, increase in hyperactivity and increase in anxiety. They also showed that there was a dose dependent decrease in an important neurological parameter, the frequency of miniature
# 13 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is particularly important. It looks at cell phone radiation DNA damage produced in a mouse spermatocyte-derived cell line. What it finds is that DNA damage is particularly high when the cell phone is in the dialed or dialing mode, as opposed to a listen mode. They also state that the radiation levels in the three modes correspond, at least roughly, to the DNA damage effects seen. They also show that pretreatment with melatonin (which is known to have antioxidant effects) greatly lowers the DNA damage produced by the cell phone EMF exposures. This is similar to the study discussed immediately above because it again shows that one effect, DNA damage is produced by another effect, namely oxidative stress/free radical elevation. You will recall that as discussed in Chapter 2, cellular DNA damage following EMF exposure is produced by the attacks by on the DNA by peroxynitrite derived free radicals. This study provides confirmation for that mechanism.
#14 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. It looks at the impact of cell phone radiation on kidney structure of rats, using six different measures of kidney structure. There were two groups of rats that were exposed to cell phone radiation which were both compared with each other and with normal unexposed control rats. The two exposed groups differed from each other in one group the kidney structure was assessed immediately following the 20 day exposure period. The second exposure group was also exposed for 20 days but was given 20 days subsequently with no exposure to see if the kidney structure spontaneously recovered. There was no recovery seen in the second group, showing that the kidney damage was effectively irreversible. In Chapter 3, several tissue remodeling type effects produced by EMF exposure appeared to be irreversible. Study #14 may add an additional such effect to that list.
#15 is another study not discussed by SCENIHR which is also particularly important. In this study control (unexposed) rats were compared with rats exposed to cell phone radiation for: less than 15 minutes per day, 15 to 30 minutes per day, 31 to 45 minutes per day or 45 to 60 minutes per day. Rats exposed to over 15 minutes per day of cell phone radiation showed type 2 diabetes onset-like effects, with higher fasting glucose levels and higher serum insulin levels. This appears to be, therefore a study showing important hormone dysfunction. It should be noted that the same research group has found similar changes in people living near cell phone towers [101]. Consequently, this is still another situation where findings in experimental animal studies appear to be directly applicable to humans.
Of the papers that were discussed, it is my opinion that the Aldad et al paper (#12, Table 4) is perhaps the most important. The paper starts out discussing the very large increase in ADHD that we have had in recent years, an increase which suggests that one or more environmental changes must be involved. This paper is from a distinguished laboratory, Hugh Taylor’s laboratory at Yale, and was published in one of the highly respected Nature journals and the paper, at this writing has been cited 89 times, showing a high level of scientific interest in it. The paper showed that prenatal exposure of pregnant mice to cell phone radiation produced three highly statistically significant changes in the adult mice. These were a decrease in measured memory function, increase in hyperactivity and increase in anxiety. They also showed that there was a dose dependent decrease in an important neurological parameter, the frequency of miniature
53
excitatory
postsynaptic currents, allowing the authors to conclude “that these behavioral
changes were due to altered neuronal developmental programming.” SCENIHR states
the following about this study:
“Neurodevelopment from a functional point of view was studied by Aldad et al. (2012) who exposed mice in utero and investigated them as adults for certain behavioural traits and electrophysiological characteristics. Exposure is poorly described but is reported to be to a muted telephone (900-1800 MHz) during the entire gestation period. After blinded investigations, the authors concluded that exposed animals displayed hyperactivity, memory deficiencies, decreased anxiety, and impaired glutamatergic transmission. Although the study employs relevant biological end-points, it cannot be used for any conclusions regarding pre-natal mobile phone exposure and functional development of the brain.” SCENIHR fails to tell us why they claim the exposures were poorly described nor do they provide any reasoning on why “it cannot be used for any conclusions regarding pre-natal mobile phone exposure and development of the brain.” It is hard to see how such results could be found unless there are substantial effects of pre-natal exposure. Because the study used genuine cell phone radiation, the effects seen are disturbing. It would be reasonable for SCENIHR to call for more studies of this type to see if they can be replicated. Having said that there have been five subsequent studies that I found where pre-natal mouse exposure to non-thermal EMFs produced substantial and somewhat similar adult neurological effects and or behavioral effects [102-106]. These five included exposures to Wi-Fi and to DECT (cordless phone) EMFs. These studies provide, then, strong evidence that prenatal exposures to EMFs can in animals, produce ADHD-like effects even into adulthood. They also show that during the late prenatal period, the developing brain is particularly sensitive to the effects of microwave frequency EMFs and raise the issue of how long after birth such sensitivity is also seen. It is common for SCENIHR and other industry friendly organizations to treat experimental studies as if they had the weaknesses of epidemiological studies. They don’t because they can and do in these cases, directly demonstrate causation. In epidemiology, causation can be inferred but not directly demonstrated. What about epidemiological evidence with regard to EMF causation of ADHD? There are two such studies that each provide evidence for an association between prenatal cell phone exposures and development of ADHD [107,108]. SCENIHR knew about both of these, since it discusses one of them which is, in turn, based on the earlier one.
Why then did SCENIHR not make the connection of those two studies with at Aldad study (#12 in Table 4)? That is of course an important failure, given that the Aldad study greatly strengthens the argument for EMF causation of ADHD.
Given the current situation where there are a total of 6 studies showing that pre-natal EMF exposures, including cell phone, Wi-Fi and cordless phone EMFs can cause ADHD-like effects in mice and two human epidemiological studies suggesting a similar mechanism in humans and the parallel between the huge increase in ADHD in humans and the huge increase in microwave frequency EMF exposures, is there any other type of evidence that supports a causal role for EMFs? It turns out there is. EMFs act primarily via VGCC activation (Chapter 20. Genetic polymorphism studies show that elevated VGCC activity has a role in causing ADHD [109], acting to a substantial extent prenatally. This is the way real science works. It is not the way that SCENIHR works.
The Vecchio et al 2010 paper (#5, Table 4) was discussed in SCENIHR 2015 as follows: “A study by Vecchio et al. (2010) analysed age-dependent EMF effects on alpha activity in waking EEGs in 16 older (47-84 years) and 15 younger subjects (20-37 years). Participants were exposed to a GSM signal (902.40 MHz, modulation frequencies: 8.33 and 217 Hz) for 45 min with a maximum SAR of 0.5 W/kg emitted by a commercially available mobile phone which was set using a test card in a double-blind cross-over paradigm. EEG was recorded for 5 min prior to and following exposure at 19 electrodes. The authors found an increased inter-hemispheric coherence of frontal alpha EEG activity after GSM exposure which was statistically significant for the
“Neurodevelopment from a functional point of view was studied by Aldad et al. (2012) who exposed mice in utero and investigated them as adults for certain behavioural traits and electrophysiological characteristics. Exposure is poorly described but is reported to be to a muted telephone (900-1800 MHz) during the entire gestation period. After blinded investigations, the authors concluded that exposed animals displayed hyperactivity, memory deficiencies, decreased anxiety, and impaired glutamatergic transmission. Although the study employs relevant biological end-points, it cannot be used for any conclusions regarding pre-natal mobile phone exposure and functional development of the brain.” SCENIHR fails to tell us why they claim the exposures were poorly described nor do they provide any reasoning on why “it cannot be used for any conclusions regarding pre-natal mobile phone exposure and development of the brain.” It is hard to see how such results could be found unless there are substantial effects of pre-natal exposure. Because the study used genuine cell phone radiation, the effects seen are disturbing. It would be reasonable for SCENIHR to call for more studies of this type to see if they can be replicated. Having said that there have been five subsequent studies that I found where pre-natal mouse exposure to non-thermal EMFs produced substantial and somewhat similar adult neurological effects and or behavioral effects [102-106]. These five included exposures to Wi-Fi and to DECT (cordless phone) EMFs. These studies provide, then, strong evidence that prenatal exposures to EMFs can in animals, produce ADHD-like effects even into adulthood. They also show that during the late prenatal period, the developing brain is particularly sensitive to the effects of microwave frequency EMFs and raise the issue of how long after birth such sensitivity is also seen. It is common for SCENIHR and other industry friendly organizations to treat experimental studies as if they had the weaknesses of epidemiological studies. They don’t because they can and do in these cases, directly demonstrate causation. In epidemiology, causation can be inferred but not directly demonstrated. What about epidemiological evidence with regard to EMF causation of ADHD? There are two such studies that each provide evidence for an association between prenatal cell phone exposures and development of ADHD [107,108]. SCENIHR knew about both of these, since it discusses one of them which is, in turn, based on the earlier one.
Why then did SCENIHR not make the connection of those two studies with at Aldad study (#12 in Table 4)? That is of course an important failure, given that the Aldad study greatly strengthens the argument for EMF causation of ADHD.
Given the current situation where there are a total of 6 studies showing that pre-natal EMF exposures, including cell phone, Wi-Fi and cordless phone EMFs can cause ADHD-like effects in mice and two human epidemiological studies suggesting a similar mechanism in humans and the parallel between the huge increase in ADHD in humans and the huge increase in microwave frequency EMF exposures, is there any other type of evidence that supports a causal role for EMFs? It turns out there is. EMFs act primarily via VGCC activation (Chapter 20. Genetic polymorphism studies show that elevated VGCC activity has a role in causing ADHD [109], acting to a substantial extent prenatally. This is the way real science works. It is not the way that SCENIHR works.
The Vecchio et al 2010 paper (#5, Table 4) was discussed in SCENIHR 2015 as follows: “A study by Vecchio et al. (2010) analysed age-dependent EMF effects on alpha activity in waking EEGs in 16 older (47-84 years) and 15 younger subjects (20-37 years). Participants were exposed to a GSM signal (902.40 MHz, modulation frequencies: 8.33 and 217 Hz) for 45 min with a maximum SAR of 0.5 W/kg emitted by a commercially available mobile phone which was set using a test card in a double-blind cross-over paradigm. EEG was recorded for 5 min prior to and following exposure at 19 electrodes. The authors found an increased inter-hemispheric coherence of frontal alpha EEG activity after GSM exposure which was statistically significant for the
54
elderly
subjects but not for the young ones. This might point to a GSM-EMF related
inter- hemispheric synchronization of alpha rhythms as a function of
physiological aging.” Another related study (#by the same research group was
also cited and discussed SCENIHR 2015 [73] as follows: “Vecchio et al. (2012a)
used the same study design to investigate an exposure effect in patients with
epilepsy. Data from 10 patients were compared to results from 15 age- matched
controls from previous studies. Patients showed a statistically significant
higher inter-hemispheric coherence of temporal and frontal alpha-rhythms under
exposure as compared to control subjects. According to the authors, these
results might indicate a GSM exposure effect on inter- hemispheric
synchronization of the dominant (alpha) EEG rhythms in epileptic
patients.”
What do I have to say about the two Vecchio studies? They are both based on an earlier 2007 study which showed that increased EEG coherence between the two hemispheres of the brain was produced by genuine cell phone EMF exposure. What the 2010 study (#5 in Table 4) shows is that the EMF-induced increased coherence is much higher in older adults than it is in younger adults. What the 2012 study (#10 in Table 4) shows is that the EMF-induced coherence seen in people with epilepsy is also much higher than in people without epilepsy. These three studies then provide large amounts of evidence for a neurological effect of cell phone radiation that is influenced by two variables, age and epilepsy. These findings should be looked at the context of the 23 reviews, listed in Chapter 1, each showing that EMFs produce both neurological and/or neuropsychiatric impacts on the brain. Here we have still another neurological effect, one that is influenced by age and epileptic condition. There are, then three important findings in these studies. One is that while we have had quite lot of evidence showing that children are more sensitive to EMF effects than adults, this is the first clear finding, to my knowledge, that suggests that older people may be more sensitive to a neurological effect. The linkage to epilepsy should not be surprising as some EHS people are reported to have seizures triggered by very low intensity EMF exposures. Finally, the communication between the two hemispheres of the brain has been known for over half a century to be through what is called the corpus callosum, a structure deeply buried in the middle of the brain, linking the two hemispheres. These effects increasing the coherence between the two hemispheres are probably produced, therefore, through the impact of the EMFs on the corpus callosum. That implies, in turn, that the EMFs act much more deeply in the brain than the industry claims is possible.
The problem with SCENIHR is that it lives in a totally fictional universe where none of those EMF effect reviews exist or at least none of them have any relevance to the SCENIHR world. Neither of the two Vecchio et al studies, discussed in the previous two paragraphs, are used by SCENIHR [73] to make any conclusions about EMF effects or lack thereof – they are only cited in the quote that I gave you. We know that because because the citations are by author’s last name and are, therefore easily searchable. Similarly, the Aldad et al (#12) study discussed two paragraphs further up, was also never cited except in the quotation given. So none of these three papers are used to assess any effects of EMFs or lack of effects. The same thing is true of the two reviews from Table 3 that were cited and discussed in [73]. They also were only cited in the quoted section and are never used to assess EMF effects or the mechanism of EMF action. As previously noted, there are several statements in SCENIHR 2015 [73] regarding lack of any available mechanism to explain claimed EMF effects, something that is directly contradicted by one of those cited and discussed reviews [4]. The consequence of all of that is that we have two very large and very consequential bodies of literature, the reviews on EMF effects and the literature on genuine cell phone radiation effects, which are entirely missing from any SCENIHR 2015 [73] conclusion.
Is There Another Systematic Effort by Industry to Corrupt the Literature that Has Been Followed to Some Extent by SCENIHR?
What do I have to say about the two Vecchio studies? They are both based on an earlier 2007 study which showed that increased EEG coherence between the two hemispheres of the brain was produced by genuine cell phone EMF exposure. What the 2010 study (#5 in Table 4) shows is that the EMF-induced increased coherence is much higher in older adults than it is in younger adults. What the 2012 study (#10 in Table 4) shows is that the EMF-induced coherence seen in people with epilepsy is also much higher than in people without epilepsy. These three studies then provide large amounts of evidence for a neurological effect of cell phone radiation that is influenced by two variables, age and epilepsy. These findings should be looked at the context of the 23 reviews, listed in Chapter 1, each showing that EMFs produce both neurological and/or neuropsychiatric impacts on the brain. Here we have still another neurological effect, one that is influenced by age and epileptic condition. There are, then three important findings in these studies. One is that while we have had quite lot of evidence showing that children are more sensitive to EMF effects than adults, this is the first clear finding, to my knowledge, that suggests that older people may be more sensitive to a neurological effect. The linkage to epilepsy should not be surprising as some EHS people are reported to have seizures triggered by very low intensity EMF exposures. Finally, the communication between the two hemispheres of the brain has been known for over half a century to be through what is called the corpus callosum, a structure deeply buried in the middle of the brain, linking the two hemispheres. These effects increasing the coherence between the two hemispheres are probably produced, therefore, through the impact of the EMFs on the corpus callosum. That implies, in turn, that the EMFs act much more deeply in the brain than the industry claims is possible.
The problem with SCENIHR is that it lives in a totally fictional universe where none of those EMF effect reviews exist or at least none of them have any relevance to the SCENIHR world. Neither of the two Vecchio et al studies, discussed in the previous two paragraphs, are used by SCENIHR [73] to make any conclusions about EMF effects or lack thereof – they are only cited in the quote that I gave you. We know that because because the citations are by author’s last name and are, therefore easily searchable. Similarly, the Aldad et al (#12) study discussed two paragraphs further up, was also never cited except in the quotation given. So none of these three papers are used to assess any effects of EMFs or lack of effects. The same thing is true of the two reviews from Table 3 that were cited and discussed in [73]. They also were only cited in the quoted section and are never used to assess EMF effects or the mechanism of EMF action. As previously noted, there are several statements in SCENIHR 2015 [73] regarding lack of any available mechanism to explain claimed EMF effects, something that is directly contradicted by one of those cited and discussed reviews [4]. The consequence of all of that is that we have two very large and very consequential bodies of literature, the reviews on EMF effects and the literature on genuine cell phone radiation effects, which are entirely missing from any SCENIHR 2015 [73] conclusion.
Is There Another Systematic Effort by Industry to Corrupt the Literature that Has Been Followed to Some Extent by SCENIHR?
55
The
important roles of pulsation, window effects, frequency, cell type and
polarization in determining biological activity of EMFs were discussed in
Chapter 1, where it was noted that SCENIHR fails to pay attention to any of
these roles. That failure shows up in many places in the document. In Tables 5,
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of SCENIHR 2015 [73], the discussion of each
table centers on how many studies found apparent effects and how many did not.
But these numbers are irrelevant to the issue of whether there are effects or
not. In fact one can argue that the industry, knowing about the roles of each of
these factors, could fund any number of studies designed to give apparent
negative results just by manipulating these factors to minimize responses and
by only studying tiny numbers of individuals to produce low statistical power.
This approach closely describes the approach used in seven studies of what were claimed to be genuine Wi-Fi studies that were described by Foster and Moulder [110] in Table 4 of their paper. Those seven studies were shown [11] to all have used an EMF that was not genuine Wi-Fi, despite claims to the contrary. They each used one of two types of reverberation exposure chamber for their rodent exposures, with each type of chamber greatly lowering the polarization of the EMFs [11] and also generating some level of destructive interference from variable path lengths produced by the reverberations. Each of these changes from genuine Wi- Fi is predicted to lower effects. Foster and Moulder [110] concluded that there was no effect in any of these studies. However tiny numbers of rodents were studied, between 3 and 15 in each class, such that these studies have very low statistical power to conclude anything substantive.
It is not possible to conclude no effect even with large studies. At most one can claim that there is no statistically significant evidence of an effect. With tiny numbers, a claim of no effect is complete nonsense. This problem with “no effect” claims is documented in a section of Rothman et al., Modern Epidemiology, 3rd Edition, a highly respected source of information, cited over 19,000 times according to the Google Scholar database. It states (p. 151, bottom) that: “A common misinterpretation of significance tests is that there no difference between two observed groups because the null test is not statistically significant, in that P is greater that the cutoff for declaring statistical significance (again, usually 0.05). This interpretation confuses a descriptive issue (whether two observed groups differ) with an inference about the superpopulation. The significance test refers only to the superpopulation, not the observed groups. To say that the difference is not statistically significant means only that one cannot reject the null hypothesis that the superpopulation groups are the same; it does not imply that the two groups are the same.” All such claims of “no effect” are, therefore flawed. When they are made regarding very small studies with very low statistical power, they are particularly deeply flawed.
Were these seven studies designed to fail? I don’t think we can say for certain but they certainly look as if they may have been. They also raise the serious question about whether the industry may be corrupting the science, by using their knowledge of the roles of pulsation, window effects, frequency, cell type and polarization.
The SCENIHR 2015 document has 127 places in the 221 pages of text where the term “no effect” was found (these can be easily found by searching the document using “no effect” for the search terms (that also picks up “no effects” statements. The first two of these 127 places are used properly, to describe the null hypothesis. Each of the other 125 should not be there, with each of those 125 overstating the case and therefore, improperly supporting the industry propaganda case.
In any case, the only way to show that there are inconsistencies or conflicts in the EMF literature is to carefully repeat studies finding such effects, not to flood the literature with studies done under other conditions. The logic used throughout SCENIHR 2015 [73] of just counting numbers of studies is deeply flawed.
This approach closely describes the approach used in seven studies of what were claimed to be genuine Wi-Fi studies that were described by Foster and Moulder [110] in Table 4 of their paper. Those seven studies were shown [11] to all have used an EMF that was not genuine Wi-Fi, despite claims to the contrary. They each used one of two types of reverberation exposure chamber for their rodent exposures, with each type of chamber greatly lowering the polarization of the EMFs [11] and also generating some level of destructive interference from variable path lengths produced by the reverberations. Each of these changes from genuine Wi- Fi is predicted to lower effects. Foster and Moulder [110] concluded that there was no effect in any of these studies. However tiny numbers of rodents were studied, between 3 and 15 in each class, such that these studies have very low statistical power to conclude anything substantive.
It is not possible to conclude no effect even with large studies. At most one can claim that there is no statistically significant evidence of an effect. With tiny numbers, a claim of no effect is complete nonsense. This problem with “no effect” claims is documented in a section of Rothman et al., Modern Epidemiology, 3rd Edition, a highly respected source of information, cited over 19,000 times according to the Google Scholar database. It states (p. 151, bottom) that: “A common misinterpretation of significance tests is that there no difference between two observed groups because the null test is not statistically significant, in that P is greater that the cutoff for declaring statistical significance (again, usually 0.05). This interpretation confuses a descriptive issue (whether two observed groups differ) with an inference about the superpopulation. The significance test refers only to the superpopulation, not the observed groups. To say that the difference is not statistically significant means only that one cannot reject the null hypothesis that the superpopulation groups are the same; it does not imply that the two groups are the same.” All such claims of “no effect” are, therefore flawed. When they are made regarding very small studies with very low statistical power, they are particularly deeply flawed.
Were these seven studies designed to fail? I don’t think we can say for certain but they certainly look as if they may have been. They also raise the serious question about whether the industry may be corrupting the science, by using their knowledge of the roles of pulsation, window effects, frequency, cell type and polarization.
The SCENIHR 2015 document has 127 places in the 221 pages of text where the term “no effect” was found (these can be easily found by searching the document using “no effect” for the search terms (that also picks up “no effects” statements. The first two of these 127 places are used properly, to describe the null hypothesis. Each of the other 125 should not be there, with each of those 125 overstating the case and therefore, improperly supporting the industry propaganda case.
In any case, the only way to show that there are inconsistencies or conflicts in the EMF literature is to carefully repeat studies finding such effects, not to flood the literature with studies done under other conditions. The logic used throughout SCENIHR 2015 [73] of just counting numbers of studies is deeply flawed.
56
Summary of
Flaws in SCENIHR 2015
The first set of flaws, is that SCENIHR is perfectly willing to make statements which they know or should have known are false. The most egregious example of this is the Speit/Schwarz controversy described at the beginning of this chapter where there are seven clear falsehoods created by SCENIHR, each of which greatly strengthens the telecommunications industry propaganda positions. There are many others, described in this chapter that are substantive, but less egregious than the Speit/Schwarz falsehoods.
There is a vast literature, both in the review literature and in the primary literature studies, that disagrees strongly with the SCENIHR positions and is completely ignored by SCENIHR. In a few cases, such studies are cited and very briefly discussed by SCENIHR but then they have no impact on the assessments that SCENIHR makes in the SCENIHR 2015 document [73]. In most cases, they are neither cited nor discussed. The situation here is similar to an organization that has two sets of books, the fake books that are used in public and then a genuine set of books that includes all of the data that are too inconvenient to be included in the fake set of books.
The finally, we have three additional considerations which interact with each other to produce the completely bogus logic used by SCENIHR and by other organizations that have taken positions similar those taken by SCENIHR. One of those considerations comes from our knowledge that pulsation pattern, cell type, polarization and frequency can all influence biological effects and that there are exposure windows that produce much larger effects than are seen with either lower or higher intensities. Our knowledge of these factors mean that it is possible for the telecommunications industry to foster any number of studies where it is unlikely that statistically significant evidence of effects will be seen. I have presented examples where this may have been done. One of the most bizarre things about the SCENIHR 2015 document [73] is that there is a sentence on p. 101 where they state “In some of these cases, the effect seemed to be dependent on the cell type investigated and by the electromagnetic parameters applied (frequency, modulation).” Modulation and pulsation are the same thing. They know about these three factors and therefore, they know that these factors may explain differences in results obtained by different studies. But they still falsely assume that such differences imply inconsistencies in results and falsely assume that it makes sense to simply count apparent positive and apparent negative studies as a way of assessing whether there are effects or not.
SCENIHR has often falsely stated that these studies show no effects as opposed to lack of statistical significance of any effects. SCENIHR 2015 document has 125 places where such bogus claims of “no effect” are found. They repeatedly claim the literature is inconsistent but studies done under different conditions are not inconsistent because they are more likely to be due to genuine biological heterogeneity of responses. The false logic described here is used, in turn, to support another highly pervasive false logic. I’ve documented where SCENIHR has simply counted numbers of studies showing so many findings of effects and some other number of findings of “no effect.” But these numbers are meaningless, when the studies are done under different conditions and where the “no effect” numbers can easily be inflated by studies designed to produce such results. They are also, of course, meaningless, when large numbers of studies that show effects are eliminated by SCENIHR by the simple process of pretending they don’t exist. You can see from this, that the entire logical framework behind the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document is completely bogus.
Lastly, before going on to the situation in the U.S. and with 5G, there is one other thing I want to state here. In 2005, Dr. Jared Diamond published a book [111] entitled “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” In it he documents how each society that “chose to fail,” chose paths that had some short term gains but also had much more severe longer-term consequences. This is exactly what we have been doing with the EMFs, except that the consequences are much more severe than the collapse of one society – here all of the advanced technology societies on earth are at great risk.
The first set of flaws, is that SCENIHR is perfectly willing to make statements which they know or should have known are false. The most egregious example of this is the Speit/Schwarz controversy described at the beginning of this chapter where there are seven clear falsehoods created by SCENIHR, each of which greatly strengthens the telecommunications industry propaganda positions. There are many others, described in this chapter that are substantive, but less egregious than the Speit/Schwarz falsehoods.
There is a vast literature, both in the review literature and in the primary literature studies, that disagrees strongly with the SCENIHR positions and is completely ignored by SCENIHR. In a few cases, such studies are cited and very briefly discussed by SCENIHR but then they have no impact on the assessments that SCENIHR makes in the SCENIHR 2015 document [73]. In most cases, they are neither cited nor discussed. The situation here is similar to an organization that has two sets of books, the fake books that are used in public and then a genuine set of books that includes all of the data that are too inconvenient to be included in the fake set of books.
The finally, we have three additional considerations which interact with each other to produce the completely bogus logic used by SCENIHR and by other organizations that have taken positions similar those taken by SCENIHR. One of those considerations comes from our knowledge that pulsation pattern, cell type, polarization and frequency can all influence biological effects and that there are exposure windows that produce much larger effects than are seen with either lower or higher intensities. Our knowledge of these factors mean that it is possible for the telecommunications industry to foster any number of studies where it is unlikely that statistically significant evidence of effects will be seen. I have presented examples where this may have been done. One of the most bizarre things about the SCENIHR 2015 document [73] is that there is a sentence on p. 101 where they state “In some of these cases, the effect seemed to be dependent on the cell type investigated and by the electromagnetic parameters applied (frequency, modulation).” Modulation and pulsation are the same thing. They know about these three factors and therefore, they know that these factors may explain differences in results obtained by different studies. But they still falsely assume that such differences imply inconsistencies in results and falsely assume that it makes sense to simply count apparent positive and apparent negative studies as a way of assessing whether there are effects or not.
SCENIHR has often falsely stated that these studies show no effects as opposed to lack of statistical significance of any effects. SCENIHR 2015 document has 125 places where such bogus claims of “no effect” are found. They repeatedly claim the literature is inconsistent but studies done under different conditions are not inconsistent because they are more likely to be due to genuine biological heterogeneity of responses. The false logic described here is used, in turn, to support another highly pervasive false logic. I’ve documented where SCENIHR has simply counted numbers of studies showing so many findings of effects and some other number of findings of “no effect.” But these numbers are meaningless, when the studies are done under different conditions and where the “no effect” numbers can easily be inflated by studies designed to produce such results. They are also, of course, meaningless, when large numbers of studies that show effects are eliminated by SCENIHR by the simple process of pretending they don’t exist. You can see from this, that the entire logical framework behind the SCENIHR 2015 [73] document is completely bogus.
Lastly, before going on to the situation in the U.S. and with 5G, there is one other thing I want to state here. In 2005, Dr. Jared Diamond published a book [111] entitled “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.” In it he documents how each society that “chose to fail,” chose paths that had some short term gains but also had much more severe longer-term consequences. This is exactly what we have been doing with the EMFs, except that the consequences are much more severe than the collapse of one society – here all of the advanced technology societies on earth are at great risk.
Chapter 6: The U.S. Early Role in
Recognizing Non-Thermal EMF Effects and
No comments:
Post a Comment