28/03/2008 - Brain Surgeon demonstrates clear brain tumour risk
Also in the News
Dr. Vini G. Khurana, a Staff Specialist Neurosurgeon for The Canberra
Hospital, has written a paper looking at recent epidemiological and laboratory
research on mobile phones and likelihood of an increase in brain tumour risk,
and finds the evidence to be fairly overwhelming.
The following are the key messages of his paper:
- Mobile phones are convenient and frequently invaluable, yet exposure to
their electromagnetic radiation is invisible. Therefore, any danger this
exposure poses may be easily dismissed.
- Exposure is long-term and its effects on the body, particularly its
electrical organ, the brain, are compounded by numerous other simultaneous
long-term exposures including continuous waves from radio and TV transmitter
towers, cordless phone base stations, power lines, and wireless/WiFi
computing devices.
- A malignant brain tumour represents a life-ending diagnosis in the vast
majority of those diagnosed. There is a significant and increasing body of
evidence, to date at least 8 comprehensive clinical studies internationally
and one long-term meta-analysis, for a link between mobile phone usage and
certain brain tumours.
- Taken together, the data presented below compellingly suggest that the
link between mobile phones and brain tumours should no longer be regarded as
a myth. Individual and class action lawsuits have been filed in the USA, and
at least one has already been successfully prosecuted, regarding the cell
phone-brain tumour link.
- The "incubation time" or "latency" (i.e., the time from commencement of
regular mobile phone usage to the diagnosis of a malignant solid brain
tumour in a susceptible individual) may be in the order of 10-20 years. In
the years 2008-2012, we will have reached the appropriate length of
follow-up time to begin to definitively observe the impact of this global
technology on brain tumour incidence rates.
- There is currently enough evidence and technology available to warrant
Industry and Governments alike in taking immediate steps to reduce exposure
of consumers to mobile phone-related electromagnetic radiation and to make
consumers clearly aware of potential dangers and how to use this technology
sensibly and safely.
- It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health
ramifications than asbestos and smoking, and directly concerns all of us,
particularly the younger generation, including very young children.
- Scientists and physicians from some academic centres worldwide came together in
mid-2007 to propose safer standards regarding public exposure to
electromagnetic fields (Click the link for details).
From the Hardell papers and the INTERPHONE studies to Chou and Lau's lab
work, most of the important papers from the last 10 years are very well
represented, including insightful commentaries on each of the papers themselves.
At the end of the section looking at the science, Dr. Khurana also gives a
summary of the typical criticisms of both the positive and the negative
studies.
The case is made extremely well that, regardless of the fact that there is
about a 50%/50% split of positive and negative studies in the recent literature,
the justification for the increase in brain tumour risk being genuine is very
compelling, and the conclusions are very hard hitting:
"...unless the Industry and Governments take
immediate and decisive steps to openly acknowledge and intervene in
this situation, even while waiting definitive confirmation by large and
well-constructed multi-centre studies worldwide, malignant brain tumour
incidence and its associated death rate will be observed globally
to rise within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too
late to meaningfully intervene, especially for those who are currently
children and young adults."
Dr. Vini G. Khurana, March 2008
The full paper is available online for free, and is an exceptionally well researched document
following up the Bioinitiative report
from last year. It is becoming steadily more irresponsible for governments to
be following the now very outdated WHO advice on the risks from Electromagnetic
Radiation, and high time that precautionary guidelines are adopted to take into
account the implications that the possible increase in risk may have. Bearing in
mind that there is now over a 100% market saturation of mobile phones in the UK,
the repurcussions could be immense, and by the time they start appearing it will
be too late.
Links
- Online Paper in Full
- About the Author
- Coverage in Local Press
Also in the news
Microwave News criticises SSI for ignoring INTERPHONE papers showing effects
Louis Slesin has heavily criticised the Swedish Radiation
Protection Authority (SSI) for seemingly excluding INTERPHONE papers that
showed an effect from their latest status report on EMFs and health.
Despite the fact that the group contains a number of scientists on the
INTERPHONE group itself, they have conveniently ignored the recent Finnish,
French, and Israeli INTERPHONE studies, which all found an increase in long-term
phone usage ... they do however include the recent German and Norwegian
INTERPHONE studies that failed to find an increase.
Regardless of the reason for this inconsistency, there is no way that the
report authors were unaware of the three studies showing an effect, and it is
hard to comprehend why they may have been excluded.
- Read the excellent article in full on Microwave News
Parotid Gland risk found in INTERPHONE paper despite summary saying otherwise
Taken from the summary of Lloyd Morgan's excellent latest column.
The Interphone Study is a 13-country case-control study on the risk of brain
and parotid gland tumors as a result of cellphone use. In order to roll-up the
results from all 13 countries, each of the individual country studies are
required to use the Interphone Protocol.
To date (March 2008) there have been two Interphone studies on the risk of
parotid gland tumors (a salivary gland near the ear) from cellphone use. The two
studies, using the same Interphone Protocol, reported diametrically different
results. How could this be? The quick answer is that one study had far more
tumors (cases) than the other. The longer answer is that one study restricted
their study design to the highest levels of exposure, while the other study made
no such effort.
The earlier Swedish-Danish study, by Lönn et al., led by the prestigious
Karolinska Institute, reported, "For regular mobile phone use, regardless of
duration, the risk estimates for malignant and benign tumors were 0.7 (95%
confidence interval: 0.4, 1.3) and 0.9 (95% confidence interval: 0.5, 1.5),
respectively. Similar results were found for more than 10 years' duration of
mobile phone use." In other words the study, in contrast to the Israeli study,
reported no risk regardless of duration of use even when the duration
exceeded 10 years. As we will see, though Lönn et al. reported no risk,
they did find a risk.
- View column entry in full
|