Could Cancer Research UK please read the report in full and report back?

Press Release

25th August, 2009, Coldfield, West Midlands, UK. Radiation Research Trust, a UK-based charity focused on the health effects of electromagnetic fields from wireless technologies, today released a report called, “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone,” along with other international health advocacy groups on two continents the report was released by a collaborative group of International EMF activists. Groups affiliated with the report include Powerwatch and the Radiation Research Trust in the U.K and in the U.S., EMR Policy Institute, ElectromagneticHealth.org and The Peoples Initiative Foundation.

Download the new report from the Radiation Research Trust: http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp

View the You Tube Introduction to the report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwjC_OUIo8I

The new report analyses the science on cellphones and brain tumours, and reviews in detail 11 key design flaws in the 13-country, industry funded Interphone Study, which underestimates risk of brain tumours.

Eileen O’Connor, Director of Radiation Research Trust, says, “It is time for government and industry to stop the denial about the health effects of microwave radiation and do what is right to protect public health”. Andrew Mitchell MP, Trustee of Radiation Research Trust and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development, says, “I welcome the scientific debate about cell phones and brain tumours and a serious discussion of any design flaws of the Interphone study.”

Pressure has been mounting on governments around the world to protect children from cell phone radiation. Russian officials have recommended children under the age of 18 years not use cell phones at all. Similarly, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Germany and India have discouraged use of cell phones by children. In Finland, the Radiation and Nuclear Power Authority has urged parents to err on the side of caution. France is nearing the point where it will make it illegal to market cell phones to children, and recently banned mobile phones in elementary schools.

Radiation emitted from wireless technologies has been shown in scientific research to show leakage of the blood-brain-barrier, and deleterious effects on sperm, including decreased sperm counts and reduced sperm motility, among many other biological effects. Studies independent of industry, consistently show there is a “significant” risk of brain tumours from mobile phone use.

Recently, in Austria, The Austrian Social Insurance for Occupational Risk (AUVA) commissioned Vienna Medical University to research the effects of cell phone radiation on the brain, immune system, and proteins. The AUVA studies have further confirmed the existence of non-thermal effects from mobile phone radiation, reinforcing the need for governments to adjust exposure guidelines.

Brian Stein, Chairman of Radiation Research Trust, and CEO of food giant, Samworth Brothers, adds “Responsible action on the part of governments is urgently required to protect future generations.”

The UK Radiation Research Trust (RRT) is a leading health advocacy organization mobilizing supporters and advocating for a precautionary approach to electromagnetic radiation and government warnings regarding wireless technologies. Its purpose is to uncover and communicate the true facts concerning electromagnetic radiation and health.

Contact: USA – Lloyd Morgan

Tel.510 841 4362

E-Mail: biovsky@aol.com

UK – Alasdair Philips

Tel. 01353 778422

E-Mail alasdair@powerwatch.org.uk

Eileen O’Connor

Director, Radiation Research Trust

E-Mail: eileen@radiationresearch.org

However, we’re keen to stress that all the research carried out in these establishments and by these scientists is – as it should be – completely independent, and regularly peer-reviewed by international experts.

We’d also like to point out that only a small proportion of our income comes from such sources – the vast majority of our fundraising comes from the thousands of individual supporters who give up their time and effort to fund our work.

You can read more about how our income is raised, and download our Annual Review – which contains full details of our funding sources – on our ‘About Us’ website.

http://www.cancerresearch.org.uk/aboutus/whoweare/ourreportsandaccounts/annual_review_2007_08/

Cheers,

Henry

You must have records of the side with the cancer, and you could find out the side normally used for the phone by calling surviving patients on their mobiles and asking them which hand they were holding the phone. It would also be useful to ask them on which side they normally use a cordless phone (they are not necessarily the same). In so far as many people spend more time on their cordless phone than on their (more expensive) mobile connection, this is an extremely important question.

I hope you will be able to follow this up and publish the results.

HEALTHCARE

7 Aug 2009 Fri

Contents by Topic
Li Ka-shing
Foundation
Education
Healthcare
Culture
Community
Publications
Press
Photos
Statistics
What’s New
“I believe in freedom as I believe in responsibility.”

Li Ka-shing Main > Projects > Healthcare >University of Cambridge

1. Hutchison/ MRC Research Center
Established with a donation of GBP 5.3 million (US$10.5 million) from Hutchison Whampoa and in collaboration with the Medical Research Council (MRC) and Cancer Research UK, the Center is located on the new island site at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, with a gross floor area of 4,000 sq. m. The new building opened in 2002 and is comprised of an MRC Cellular and Molecular Biology Unit and the Hutchison Cancer Research Unit, which is staffed by specialists from the University and will promote ways of applying fundamental research to the clinical treatment of patients. It is hoped that the establishment of this Research Center will help take full advantage of the University’s resources both in its biomedical departments and in the Clinical School and result in a breakthrough in cancer research.

2. The Li Ka Shing Center
Established in 2007 with a GBP 16.5 million (US$32.6 million) donation from Hutchison Whampoa and in collaboration with the internationally renowned Cancer Research UK, and the University of Cambridge, the Li Ka Shing Center boasts a gross floor area of 14,000 sq.m. and houses the new Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute. Its aim is to bring together some of the best researchers and medical professionals of Cambridge University and Cancer Research UK to create a center for basic and applied cancer research that should be unparalleled.

More than 300 scientists in 20 research groups will be based at the Institute. The Director of the Center is Professor Bruce Ponder, Director of the Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute and a leading cancer researcher who is also joint head of the HWL/MRC Research Center, which opened in 2002. Professor Ponder’s research covers the genetics of breast cancer.

3. Li Ka Shing Professorship of Oncology
To reinforce the University of Cambridge’s position at the forefront of cancer research, the Foundation has established a Professorship of Oncology at the University. The first holder of the Chair is Professor Bruce Ponder, who will oversee research on the epidemiology of cancer at the Strangeways Research Laboratory; translational clinical research in Addenbrooke’s Hospital; cellular and molecular studies in the Hutchison/MRC Research Centre; and a range of research groups in the new Cancer Research UK Cambridge Research Institute.

4. Biomedical Computing Research
Modern wireless technology makes it possible for medical professionals to receive high quality clinical information at the point of care.

The Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK, SäteilyTUrvaKeskus) got worried. In January 2009 STUK tried a new, more open strategy, so their representatives started blogging and getting feedback. On 23rd June 2009 all four official blogs (…

Ed, Having initially denied effects like this, you now say that “Further research is warranted, but the effects are generally very small”.

But aren’t you worried that allegedly “small” (!) short term effects can cause larger long term effects?

You urge caution in interpretation. But you were so “cautious” that you didn’t even mention them!

Below is a list of some of the studies that unequivocally found oxidative stress from mobiles. Let’s look at some to see if this “caution” is justified.

What have we got: mostly rats, and human cells. Human platelets, human nostrils, human nitric oxide levels. Rat brain, rat hearts, rat retina, rat kidneys, rat nasal mucosa, rat endometrium and rat skin.

Ed, Assuming that all those studies must have a purpose, I think there is too much here to be dismissed, especially as these are only short term studies.

Regards
Walter

Oxidative stress from mobiles

1) Mobile EMF leads to oxidative stress in rats as measured by MDA, NO, ADA and reduced SOD and GSH, reversed by Ginko-biloba. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14734207
2) EMF from mobiles myocardial oxidative stress in rats (reversed by CAPE a components of honeybee propolis), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16342473
3) Mobile induced plasma LPO and reduced SOD, GSH-Px.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11516912
4) Mobile reduced DOS-1 in human blood platelets.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16602439
5) Simulated GSM MAST radiation well below ICNIRP limits led to MDA, reduced GSH, SOD in rats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16954120
6) Mobile induced oxidative stress in rat retina. Melatonin vs CAPE, both reversed, Melatonin “won narrowly” on GSH.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16317515
7) EMF from mobile Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), oxidative stress in rat kidneys, CAPE reverses
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16132717
8) Melatonin vs CAPE, mobile damage to rat kidneys, both reversed, Melatonin overall more effective
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16132682
9) Mobile effects on rats kidneys, rats pre-treated with Melatonin were protected.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15950073
10) Nonlinear time window – effects of mobile on human blood platelets with respect to SOD-1 and MDA – after 1,5,7 mins, SOD-1 down, MDA up, but after 3 mins, the reverse.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12474410
11) Mobile radiation-induced increases in nitric oxide levels
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15886623 and
12) Mobile radiation-induced increases in nitric oxide levels
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11192886
13) 900 MHz mobile induced histopathologic changes and oxidative stress in rat endometrium: protection by vitamins E and C, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536493
14) Modification of membrane fluidity in melanin-containing cells by 2.45-GHz pulsed microwaves, via superoxide dismutase. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
15) Oxidative stress-mediated skin damage in experimental mobile phone model can be prevented by melatonin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15729859
16) GSM signals affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX foci in human lymphocytes, in EHS and healthy people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16140623
17) 915 MHz microwaves induced responses in lymphocytes, similar to stress response induced by heat shock
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15768430
18) Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/gamma-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18839414
19) Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076339
20) Mobile phone signals induce apoptosis and inactivation of the multi-chaperone complex in human epidermoid cancer cells, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15754340
21) Rat skin tissue changes, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15941010
22) Koylu 2006, Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/16898263

Russel J. Reiter, PhD, professor of cellular and structural biology, has devoted nearly 30 years to pineal research and has become one of the foremost authorities on melatonin, http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring95/brainmel.html

Reiter and Henshaw stress the difference between short term and long term exposure. They cite eleven studies here which in their words, show evidence of melatonin disruption

“In contrast to the volunteer studies with short-term exposure, there is now a body of studies involving either longer term or chronic magnetic field exposures which taken together show evidence of nocturnal melatonin disruption. These are listed in table 1…Overall, in table 1, eleven studies show evidence of melatonin disruption by power frequency magnetic fields and two by geomagnetic field disturbances. In some cases there is evidence of a dose response effect and disruption for exposures to fields below 0.3/0.4 μT.
[Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukaemia via melatonin disruption?, 2005, http://www.electric-fields.bris.ac.uk/meldisrup.html

The evidence as far as long term effects from power frequency magnetic fields are concerned, seems fairly strong.

There do not appear to be many long term studies of melatonin involving mobiles. Thanks for these four (negative) links, two of which however seem to be short term. With such small numbers in the 3 volunteer studies, it would have been quite difficult to reach 95% statistical significance (only 38, 9, 20 and the last one unspecified, respectively). There have been positive microwave studies too.

The positive EMF studies cited in Reiter and Henshaw are in general larger and of longer duration.

Given also that mobiles expose their users to magnetic fields, it’s surely not safe to dismiss long term effects of mobiles on the levels of the cancer-fighting agent melatonin.

Re: Blood-brain barrier studies, you say it is noteworthy that one positive study was later superceded, but again, there are many others.

I was therefore surprised to read this claim you give from AGNIR:

“Most studies in animals have not reported any RF-field-dependent responses on the brain and nervous system.. particularly with regard to changes in…. the permeability of the blood-brain barrier”

I believe this statement regarding the BBB to be incorrect. An online presentation Coghill “RF Radiation Blood Brain Barrier studies 1990-2004” gives the ratio of positive to negative studies (of effects of RF radiation on the BBB) as 9:2. http://anotherburnsidemast.com/Cellphone%20masts%20and%20health.pdf

Likewise in a quick search I found several positive studies, only two negatives though there may have been an additional more recent one.

AGNIR cite “A study from Sweden” presumably referring to Salford et al. But this team has since replicated their results in several studies, with continuous microwaves waves and various pulse frequencies, and found a dose-response.

The Salford team BBB research:

Nittby 2009, GSM-900 effects 7 days after exposure, and dose-response. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073
Eberhardt 2008, effects 14 days after exposure, nerve damage after 28 days
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18821198
Nittby et al 2008. Describes effects on BBB as “demonstrated”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18568929
Grafström et al, 2008. Histopathological examinations of rat brains after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. (1 year, negative outcome) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18782606
Salford et al, 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones (two hours). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486
Persson et al, 1997. CW and MW pulsed at various frequencies. Significant difference all levels.
http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/Research/blood-brain.html .

But the evidence for the microwave-BBB effect dates back much earlier. Richard Frey in 1998. “Second, the blood-brain barrier appears to be involved in headaches, and low intensity microwave energy exposure affects the barrier”. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9441959

Finally what about the fact that Russian studies in the 70s were reported to have established the BBB link? The Daily Express reported in 1999 that “…uncensored documents reveal that Soviet military scientists has successfully used microwaves of the type used by mobile phones to weaken the blood brain barrier. This is meant to protect the brain from harmful substances in the blood.”. The information in the documents are censored now though! Too late, cat-out-of-bag!?

Perhaps your information given on the effects on the BBB simply happened to be gathered at an unfortunate time point.. At any rate, it seems not to be valid nowadays. I’d be interested to know what you think about this.

Regards
Walter

Hi Ed. You say

“A very large number of papers have found that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from mobile phones do not damage DNA.”, and then mention two alleged ‘frauds’.

Given that many studies have found indirect DNA damage from mobiles, I’m not sure of the value of these points.

I’d like to mention these two studies that found DNA damage at low levels.

Garaj-Vrhovac 2008. DNA damage at ~6-8 v/m, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18214694.
Naturforsch 1992. MW at 2 v/m suppresses repair of radiation-induced damage.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1388519

These are interesting as such exposure levels are increasingly common, even in the home. Also the suppression of repair of radiation-induced damage is a good example of an indirect mechanism by which low level microwaves can harm DNA .

One more, hot off the presses:

“Electromagnetic fields stress living cells”, Blank and Goodman, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19268550

“While low energy EMF interacts with DNA to induce the stress response, increasing EMF energy in the RF range can lead to breaks in DNA strands.”

The many other studies that found DNA strand breaks – well I’ll leave this to the experts. These from Microwavenews:

• R.J. Aitken et al., “Impact of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on DNA Integrity in the Male Germline,” International Journal of Andrology, 28, pp.171-179, 2005 (Australia);
• W. Baohong et al., “Studying the Synergistic Damage Effects Induced by 1.8 GHz Radiofrequency Field Radiation (RFR) with Four Chemical Mutagens on Human Lymphocyte DNA Using Comet Assay in Vitro,” Mutation Research, 578, pp.149-157, 2005 (China);
• W. Baohong et al., “Evaluating the Combinative Effects on Human Lymphocyte DNA Damage Induced by Ultraviolet Ray C Plus 1.8 GHz Microwaves Using Comet Assay in Vitro,” Toxicology, 232, pp.311-316, 2007 (China);
• G. Gandhi and Anita, “Genetic Damage in Mobile Phone Users: Some Preliminary Findings,” Indian Journal of Human Genetics, 11, pp.99-104, 2005 (India);
• J. Kim et al., “In Vitro Assessment of Clastogenicity of Mobile-Phone Radiation (835 MHz) Using the Alkaline Comet Assay and Chromosomal Aberration Test,” Environmental Toxicology, 23, pp.319-327, 2008 (Korea).

Many more on microwavenews link: http://www.microwavenews.com/
And more here, http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/phones.asp#dna

As these must be upwards of thirty positive studies linked in total here, the issue of DNA damage from microwaves should not be ignored. As I said above, your amended statement that

“There is no consistent evidence that mobiles could affect our cells in a harmful way.”

needs further work, IMO.

Walter

There is nothing wrong with Ed’s excellent summary and responses whereas you and one or two others here have, ironically, painted a grossly unmeasured and misleading picture with misrepresentation, exaggeration, unsupported assertion etc.

Here’s another very good overview of the subject by the EC’s SCENIHR committee who have also looked at /all/ the evidence and considered /all/ reasonable concerns and plausible mechanisms.

http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/en/electromagnetic-fields/index.htm