Literature review of mobile phone health research including 15 reasons for concern:
1- the wireless industrys initial research suggested non-thermal RF exposure causes brain tumors in rodents (CTIA research)
2- subsequent wireless industry research suggested non-thermal RF exposure causes brain tumors in humans(Hardell et al, Muscat et al, Inskip et al, Auvinen et al)
3- INTERPHONE studies suggest mobile phone use for less than 10 years is protective against brain tumors (suggesting design flaws)
4- Other studies suggest mobile phone use for less than 10 years causes brain tumors (Hardell et al)
5- INTERPHONE studies suggest mobile phone use for more than 10 years causes brain tumors (and with control bias the risk may be even greater)
6- industry funded studies are generally negative, independently funded studies are generally positive
7- children are at greater risk and are using mobile phone at a younger age than before
8- there are numerous governmental warnings about childrens use of mobile phones in statements and policies from France, Russia, the UK, Israel, Belgium, Germany, India, Finland, Korea, and the city of Toronto
9- existing limits are based only on thermal effects
10- a majority of the European Parliament voted to change current policies on RF exposure
11- non-thermal RF exposure can damage DNA (Phillips, Singh, and Lai reviews in Pathophysiology)
12- non-thermal RF exposure can cause blood-brain barrier permeability (Salford et al)
13- Mobile phone user manuals (e.g., Apple iPhone, Nokia, Motorola, BlackBerry) warn customers to maintain minimal separation distances both when in use and when not in use
14- the FCC recommends a 20-cm distance between the corless phones and the body
15- non-thermal RF exposure can damage sperm and male fertility
AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Morgan et al. 2015 (IEEE #6188): Quickly changing technologies and intensive uses of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF)emitting phones pose a challenge to public health. Mobile phone users and uses and exposures to other wireless transmitting devices (WTDs) have increased in the past few years. We consider that CERENAT, a French national study, provides an important addition to the literature evaluating the use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumors. The CERENAT finding of increased risk of glioma is consistent with studies that evaluated use of mobile phones for a decade or longer and corroborate those that have shown a risk of meningioma from mobile phone use. In CERENAT, exposure to RFEMF from digitally enhanced cordless telephones (DECTs), used by over half the population of France during the period of this study, was not evaluated. If exposures to DECT phones could have been taken into account, the risks of glioma from mobile phone use in CERENAT are likely to be higher than published. We conclude that radiofrequency fields should be classified as a Group 2A probable human carcinogen under the criteria used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Lyon, France). Additional data should be gathered on exposures to mobile and cordless phones, other WTDs, mobile phone base stations and WiFi routers to evaluate their impact on public health. We advise that the as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA) principle be adopted for uses of this technology, while a major crossdisciplinary effort is generated to train researchers in bioelectromagnetics and provide monitoring of potential health impacts of RFEMF.
AUTHORS' ABSTRACT: Philips et al. 2018 (IEEE #7001): Objective. To investigate detailed trends in malignant brain tumour incidence over a recent time period. Methods. UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) data covering 81,135 ICD10 C71 brain tumours diagnosed in England (19952015) were used to calculate incidence rates (ASR) per 100k personyears, agestandardised to the European Standard Population (ESP2013). Results. We report a sustained and highly statistically significant ASR rise in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) across all ages. The ASR for GBM more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0, with annual case numbers rising from 983 to 2531. Overall, this rise is mostly hidden in the overall data by a reduced incidence of lower-grade tumours. Conclusions. The rise is of importance for clinical resources and brain tumour aetiology. The rise cannot be fully accounted for by promotion of lowergrade tumours, random chance or improvement in diagnostic techniques as it affects specific areas of the brain and only one type of brain tumour. Despite the large variation in case numbers by age, the percentage rise is similar across the age groups, which suggests widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible. This article reports incidence data trends and does not provide additional evidence for the role of any particular risk factor.
AUTHORS' ABSTACT: Miller et al. 2018 (IEEE #7129): Epidemiology studies (case-control, cohort, time trend and case studies) published since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2011 categorization of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from mobile phones and other wireless devices as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) are reviewed and summarized. Glioma is an important human cancer found to be associated with RFR in 9 case-control studies conducted in Sweden and France, as well as in some other countries. Increasing glioma incidence trends have been reported in the UK and other countries. Non-malignant endpoints linked include acoustic neuroma (vestibular Schwannoma) and meningioma. Because they allow more detailed consideration of exposure, case-control studies can be superior to cohort studies or other methods in evaluating potential risks for brain cancer. When considered with recent animal experimental evidence, the recent epidemiological studies strengthen and support the conclusion that RFR should be categorized as carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 1). Opportunistic epidemiological studies are proposed that can be carried out through cross-sectional analyses of high, medium, and low mobile phone users with respect to hearing, vision, memory, reaction time, and other indicators that can easily be assessed through standardized computer-based tests. As exposure data are not uniformly available, billing records should be used whenever available to corroborate reported exposures.