Cellphones What Does the Science Tell Us? 1 L. Lloyd Morgan Senior Research Fellow Environmental Health Trust Member Bioelectromagnetics Society Retired Electronic Engineer The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields Commonwealth Club, San Francisco November 18, 2010

What Does Industry Tell Us? “The weight of the evidence says there is no problem” –This is not true remove industry studies and the weight of the evidence is overwhelming there is a problem “There is no known mechanism [implying the data must be wrong]” –Probable mechanisms exist, but requiring a mechanism is anti-science. First comes the data, then decades to centuries later mechanisms are understood There is no known mechanism for smoking and lung cancer 2

What Does Industry Tell Us? “With so many cellphones in use, if they were causing brain tumors, then we should see an incidence increase in brain tumors and there is no such increase” –It is true there is no increase incidence of brain tumor YET. But the average latency time for brain tumors is 30+ years. –THE question to ask is What % of all people were using cellphones 30+ years ago? 3

Tumor Risks From Cellphone Use Brain cancer Acoustic neuroma (acoustic nerve tumor) Meningioma (tumor of the meninges) Parotid (salivary) gland tumor Uveal melanoma (eye cancer) Testicular cancer 4

No increase in brain tumors was found until –40 years later Atomic Bombs Survivors 5

What Does The Science Tell Us? Human Studies 6

Cellphone Case-Control Studies Cases are people with brain tumors Controls are people without brain tumors –Matched to cases by gender, age, region, etc. Questions are asked about cellphone use Question are asked about confounders –Cordless phone use –Smoking –Ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays) 7

Case-Control Studies Six early studies (5 industry funded) –Too early to expect to find a risk Typical use <3 years Swedish studies (no industry funding) –Dr. Lennart Hardell’s team –Cellphone and cordless phone use Interphone studies (substantial industry funding) –13 countries –Defines “User” as once per week for 6 months –Only cellphone use, but Asks all subjects about cordless phone use –More subjects used cordless phone than cell phones »Cordless phone use treated as non-exposure –Systematic under-estimation of risk 8

Hardell Studies: Risk to Children 9

Hardell: Risk of High-Grade Brain Cancer by Hours or Years 10

Hardell: Risk of Tumor on Same Side of Head Where Cellphone Was Used 11

Hardell: >10 Year of Use or >2,000 Hours of Use 12

Interphone Study’s Underestimation of Risk 13-country pooled results reports brain cancer underestimation –19%, 95% Confidence Interval: 6 to 30% " [The protective effect] could result from the sources of error discussed above, although … their magnitude and effects –may not account fully for the observed reduction in risk [protection]." Morgan, Kundi, Carlberg: BEMS (June 2010) –Re-evaluation of the Interphone Study Application of a Correction Factor –25%, 95% Confidence Interval: 11% to 47% 13

Interphone Results: brain cancer Pooled results from 13-countries –No overall increased risk with median use of hours a month and 100 cum. hours of use –But with longer term use 118% increased risk with >10 years of use –Compared to very short use (1 to 1.9 years) –Systematic underestimation of risk Most common finding, <10 years is use of a cellphone protects the user from brain cancer –32 different results report statistically significant protection 14

Risk of Brain Cancer Hardell Vs Interphone 15 No Industry Funding Substantial Industry Funding

Risk of Other Tumors 290% increase risk of acoustic neuroma –>10 years, cellphone used on same side of head as tumor, Swedish Interphone study 380% increased risk of meningioma –>1,640 cum hours in 1 to 4 years of use, pooled 13-country Interphone study 81% increased risk of parotid gland tumor –>1,035 cum hours of use, Israeli Interphone study 16

17 Salivary Gland Tumors Tripled in Israel, 20% under age 20

Risk of Other Tumors 320% increased risk of uveal melanoma (eye cancer) –“Probable/certain exposure to mobile phones” Stang et al % increased risk of testicular cancer –Left pocket, left testicle –Right pocket, right testicle 18

Risk to Male Fertility Cleveland Clinic study (among many others) –Sperm count degradation –Surviving sperm degradation 19

What Does the Science Tell Us? Animal (In Vivo) Studies Cellular (In Vitro) Studies 20

Animal Studies Double-strand DNA breaks in rat brains after a 2-hour cellphone exposure Blood-Brain Barrier Leakage in rat brains after 2-hour cellphone exposure –Dead neurons –Loss of cognition 21

Human Cellular Studies EU REFLEX studies –Multiple replications –GSM genotoxicity G2 phones –UMTS genotoxicity G3 (Smart) phones 10 X larger than GSM 22

Schwarz C et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2008, 81 (6): Slide courtesy of Devra Davis Dose-response increase in DNA strand breaks UMTS Modulation (G3 or Smart Phones)

Schwarz C et al., Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2008, 81 (6): Slide courtesy of Devra Davis Time-dependent formation of DNA strand breaks UMTS Modulation(G3 or Smart Phones)

What Does Industry Tell Us? “All agencies say there is no problem –World Health Organization (WHO) –Food and Drug Administration (FDA) –Federal Communications Commission (FCC) –National Cancer Institute (NCI)” 25

What Does Industry Tell Us? Regulators are controlled by the corporations they regulate –WHO WHO’s EMF Project is industry funded and source for WHO –FDA Requires pre-market safety testing of all electrical devices held to body –Granted exclusive waiver to cellphone industry »FDA’s waiver champion went to work for Motorola Approved VIOXX in spite of data showing increased heart attacks –When heart attacks among VIOXX users was overwhelming, Merck pulled it from the market »The FDA never acted 26

What Does Industry Tell Us? Who is in charge, regulators or industry? –FCC Exposure limit based on false industry premise –Only biological effect from cellphone radiation is heating »Only protects against cooking the brain Allows use of an industry designed cellphone certification process that substantially underestimates the cellphone’s SAR, – especially in children (2.5 fold underestimation) –NCI Found no risk of brain tumors in a study finished in 1998 –Before study: researchers protested to management »It is too early for a study because cellphones use had barely begun –Management prevailed 27

What More Is Required Before Our Public Health Agencies Act? With human studies, animal studies, cellular studies all showing serious health effects 28

Thank You Questions? 29