dariusz leszczynski australia november 2014

CELL PHONE RADIATIONHealth Risk and Precautionary Principle

Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc

Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki, Finland

Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers in Radiation and Health, Switzerland

Member of the Advisory Board, Cellraid, Ltd, Finland

Science blogger @ BRHP – Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Australia, November 2014

Who I am... few examples of my experience

• Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki, Finland

• Chief Editor of ’Radiation and Health’; specialty of Frontiers in Public Health

• Two doctorates in biochemistry and in cell biology

• 22 years (1992-2013) at Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority

• 2003-2007 as Head of Radiation Biology laboratory

• 2000-2013 as Research Professor

• Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School 1997-1999

• Guangbiao Professor at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China 2006-2009

• Visiting Professor at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia 2012/2013

• Testified in US Senate hearing on cell phones and health, in 2009

• Expert in IARC 2011 classification of carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation

Dariusz Leszczynski, Australia, November 2014

WHO defintion of health

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental andsocial well-being and not merely the absence ofdisease or infirmity”

Whenever discussing safety of radiation emitted by the wirelesscommunication devices we need to remember this WHOdefinition of health


“CELL PHONES REACH THE MARKET WITHOUT SAFETY TESTING

The cellular phone industry was born in the early 1980s, when communicationstechnology that had been developed for the Department of Defense was put intocommerce by companies focusing on profits. This group, with big ideas but limitedresources, pressured government regulatory agencies—particularly the Food and DrugAdministration (FDA)—to allow cell phones to be sold without pre-market testing. Therationale, known as the “low power exclusion,” distinguished cell phones from dangerousmicrowave ovens based on the amount of power used to push the microwaves. At thattime, the only health effect seen from microwaves involved high power strong enough toheat human tissue.”

from the LifeExtension Magazine August 2007The Hidden Dangers of Cell Phone RadiationGeorge Carlo interviewed by Sue Kovach


IARC evaluation may 2011

• 30 invited experts divided into four sub-groups• Dosimetry

• Epidemiology

• Animal studies

• Mechanistic laboratory in vitro studies

• Decissions done by consensus or by simple majority

• The vast majority of the 30 experts voted for the possible carcinogen classification


IARC 2011: Epidemiology

• Interphone & Hardell studies• no reliable exposure data based on person’s memory

• risk increase in long-term avid users

• Children – only CEFALO• exposures for 2-4 years

• has no statistical power to detect small risk


...after IARC: Epidemiology

• Trend-data - Little et al. 2012: slow rise of brain cancer cases in USA• trend is similar to Interphone “prediction” but not Hardell “prediction”

• Danish Cohort update study 2011 – no effect but no exposure data• no radiation exposure data at all; just the length of phone subscription with

service provider

• Million Women study 2014 - no effect but exposure data inadequate• use of cell phone: ‘never’, ‘less than once a day’, ‘every day’

• CERENAT study from France 2014 – effect as in Inerphone and Hardell• no reliable exposure data based on person’s memory


The limited human evidence was based on the results of two sets of epidemiological studies European Interphone group and Hardell group in Sweden

After the IARC evaluation, in 2014, was published a new epidemiological study - the French CERENAT

The French study reached similar conclusions as Interphone and Hardell previously –long term avid use of cell phone increases a risk of developing brain cancer

It means that now there are three replications of the same epidemiological type of study, the case-control study, that all suggest cell phone radiation might increase a risk of brain cancer

Epidemiological evidence supports cancer risk


• All to date executed epidemiology studies have completely unreliable orlack completely of the radiation exposure data

• Length of calls or length of phone subscription with service provider or sayingwhether you ever or never used cell phone, do not inform about the real exposureof the cell phone user

• Using the above ”radiation exposure data”, persons with very different realradiation exposures are placed in the same exposed group for statisticalevaluation. This skewes results

• Ongoing cohort study COSMOS collects exposure data as length of callswhat is yet again not reliable radiation exposure information

There is a way to improve exposure data using apps installed on cell phones


(cellraid.com)

Cell phone app – proprietary algorithm, runs on anycommercial Android phone and simultaneouslymeasures RF emission exposure from cell phone,cell tower and wi-fi and stores it in the cloud

Monitoring wireless exposures with The way to improve scientific research and public’s awareness


http://cellraid.com/

http://cellraid.com/

IARC 2011: Human studies

• The vast majority are “feelings” studies• Subjects asked how they feel

• Subject asked do they feel when radiation is on/off

• EHS must exist – question is only of what is radiation cut-off level

• Otherwise RF would be the only factor not causing individual sensitivity in people

• Problem of EHS – studied by psychologists not physiologists – wrong methods

• WHO definition of health – how to consider it? IARC classification justifies reasoningfor “mental and social well-being”

• Lack of studies examining biochemical responses of human tissues (!)• Single skin proteomics study

• Two studies examined glucose metabolism in the brain


IARC 2011: Animal studies

• No classical toxicology possible• Not possible to overdose cell phone radiation because of heating effect

• By classical toxicology standards RF would be judged as harmful to humans

• Life-time exposures to radiation at doses similar to those emitted by cell phones showno effect – result is useless for human health risk estimation

• Misleading claims that animal studies do not show effects but notmentioning that the radiation dose is similar to human exposures (!)

• Co-carcinogen studies show some effects – cell phone radiation mightpotentiate effects of carcinogenic chemicals or radiation


Potential problem is a “moving target”

Even if individual risk will be small, considering that there are over 6.9 billion of cell phone users, the burden for the society might be sizable in monetary and human suffering terms

Radiation exposures from cell phones and from smart phones are not comparable – smart phone radiation exposures are much higher because of data traffic


The IARC classification, of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen, invalidates the ICNIRP and WHO claims that the current safety standards protect all users

In three independent epidemiological case-control studies, two of which were evaluated by IARC, adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cell phones

These cell phones were built to fulfil all ICNIRP safety standards

However, avid use of such “safe” cell phones for period of over 10 years led to an increased risk of brain cancer

This means, the current safety standards do not protect sufficiently users of cell phones

Safety standards - insufficient to protect users


Invoking the Precautionary Principle

“Whether or not to invoke the Precautionary Principle is adecision exercised where scientific information is insufficient,inconclusive, or uncertain and where there are indicationsthat the possible effects on environment, or human, animal orplant health may be potentially dangerous and inconsistentwith the chosen level of protection.”


Invoking the Precautionary Principle

• Scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain• IARC classification as possible carcinogen (2B category)

• There are indications that the possible effects on human health maybe potentially dangerous• epidemiological studies (Interphone, Hardell, CERENAT) show an

increased brain cancer risk in long-term avid users

• Inconsistent with the chosen level of protection• epidemiological studies, showing increased risk in long-term avid

users, were generated using persons with regular cell phones,meeting current safety standards = current safety standards are beinsufficient to protect users


The scientific evidence on health hazard due to cell phone radiationexposures is still inconclusive

However, there are acknowledged red flags – studies showing risk

The requirement of providing conclusive scientific proof has posed a barrierin numerous campaigns to protect health and the environment.

Early warning signs are ignored or dismissed and actions to prevent harmare usually taken only after significant proof of harm is established, atwhich point it may be too late and it requires substantial efforts to reverseharm done to population or environment.

We should learn from the history of the numerous past mistakes


Impact of Implementing Precautionary Principle

• Precaution does not equal Prevention

• Strong opposition from telecom industry• Technology providers can be made responsible to prove their product is safe• Requirement of making more efficient (less radiation emissions) technology• Limiting current rampant and uncontrolled deployment of wireless networks

• Will create new knowledge through research

• Will create new jobs in research and technology


Conclusions

• IARC classification of the cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen is asufficient reason for invoking Precautionary Principle

• Claims that the current safety standards protect all users are not supported bythe scientific evidence

• Users should be informed about the current scientific uncertainty and advisedto limit exposures whenever possible and feasible and strongly discouragedfrom keeping cell phones close to body (in pockets)

• Real radiation exposure data should be used in epidemiological studies

• ALARA principle should be implemented for RF exposures


dariusz leszczynski australia november 2014

Health & Medicine