THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter (09/25/05)

[Guest guest]

26 Sep 2005 22:40:05 -0000

" Cancer Decisions " <

THE MOSS REPORTS Newsletter (09/25/05)

 

 

----------------------

Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D. Weekly CancerDecisions.com

Newsletter #203 09/25/05

----------------------

 

 

 

THE MOSS REPORTS

 

=======================

 

ARE CELL PHONES SAFE?

 

 

This week I conclude my three-part series concerning the safety of

devices such as cell phones that emit radiofrequency energy fields. Do

these energy fields cause or predispose to the development of cancer?

 

 

HERE AT THE MOSS REPORTS

 

This week I conclude my discussion of concerns about the safety of

devices that emit radiofrequency energy fields. Do such energy fields

cause or predispose to the development of cancer? Controversy still

swirls around the issue. While some researchers have concluded that

the risk is minimal, others are less sanguine. A weak but

statistically significant link has been established between

residential exposure to energy emissions from nearby power lines and

the development of a small percentage of childhood leukemias, for

example (Greenland 2000; Ahlbom 2000). Researchers have repeatedly

demonstrated that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are capable of

disrupting physiological processes at the cellular level, leading,

among other things, to the accumulation of free radicals within the

cell, and have proposed that such disturbances may in turn create

conditions in which malignant change can more easily take place.

 

Yet agencies such as the American Cancer Society continue to issue

blanket reassurances that cell phones, microwave ovens, power lines

and other radiofrequency energy-emitting devices are safe, and do not

contribute to the incidence of cancer.

 

What are we to make of these contradictory pronouncements? This is not

the only sphere in which the research suggests cause for concern while

the agencies charged with protecting the public's safety insist that

there is nothing to worry about. While research is still in progress

the debate should remain open, yet all too often the attitude of these

agencies can suggest at best a willful complacency, and at worst a

stubborn and paternalistic refusal to acknowledge even the need for a

continued dialog on the subject.

 

This newsletter is one of the few places where scientific

controversies and official contradictions are routinely examined in a

truthful, objective way. Despite the fact that there are significant

costs associated with producing this newsletter, we accept no

advertising, and subscription is free. We do, however, welcome

voluntary donations from those readers who feel they would like to

support our efforts. If you would like to make a donation you can do

so by using Amazon.com's honor system All you need is a credit card

number (or, better yet, Amazon one-click shopping). To make a

donation, please click or go to:

 

Amazon Honor System

 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those generous

readers who have made donations. Your help has made it possible for us

to continue publishing this newsletter and we greatly appreciate your

support.

 

Over the past thirty years I have studied and written extensively on

the scientific basis of cancer treatment. My goal has always been to

provide my readers with objective, accurate information on current

developments in the world of cancer research and therapy.

 

The Moss Reports is a comprehensive library of individual reports on

more than 200 different kinds of cancer. Each of these reports

analyzes the current available treatments, both conventional and

alternative, for a particular cancer diagnosis, and offers the cancer

patient a clear-eyed, truthful assessment of the available options. If

you would like to order a Moss Report for yourself or someone you

love, you can do so from our website, www.cancerdecisions.com, or by

calling 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).

 

I also offer phone consultations. A phone consultation can be

enormously helpful in drawing up an effective treatment strategy and

getting one's options clearly prioritized. To schedule an appointment,

please call 1-800-980-1234 (814-238-3367 from outside the US).

 

We look forward to helping you.

 

DO RADIOFREQUENCY ENERGY FIELDS CAUSE CANCER? PART THREE

 

 

In the last two issues of this newsletter we discussed the possible

link between radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RFEMF), such as

are emitted by cell/mobile phones, and an increased risk of cancer. We

conclude our discussion this week.

 

Some Studies Find a Link

 

 

Many scientists dismiss the possibility that RFEMFs can cause cancer.

But a minority disagrees. Briefly, here are just three of the current

and recent studies that have indicated a link between radiofrequency

electromagnetic fields and malignancy.

 

In the eyes of some researchers, in fact, " there is a growing amount

of evidence about the harmful effects of EMFs [electromagnetic fields,

ed.] on the human body, the most dangerous of which is the possible

carcinogenic effect. " So wrote Israeli scientists in reviewing the

overall field in the spring of 2005 (Beniashvili 2005).

 

Drs. Leeka I. Kheifets and C. Chantal Matkin, of the Electric Power

Research Institute (EPRI) in Palo Alto, California agree with many

others that " most of the epidemiologic data do not provide strong

support for an association between EMF and breast cancer. " However

they also state that because of the limited statistical power and the

possibility of bias in much of the existing data, " it is not possible

to rule out a relationship between EMF and breast cancer " (Kheifets 1999).

 

Significantly, EPRI is generally a pro-industry group, which includes

almost 1,000 energy producers as members. As of 2001, 27 of its

30-member Board of Directors represented utility companies. Some

people turn up their noses at such overtly partisan institutions. But

my feeling is that pro-industry researchers would on the whole be less

likely than more independent scientists to warn of the potential risks

of EMF exposure, so the fact that these researchers acknowledge the

possibility of a breast cancer/EMF link is very significant.

 

Again, I want to emphasize that most research in this field concludes

that electromagnetic field exposure, at least that emanating from

power lines, is harmless. Yet even among this body of literature there

are a few disturbing trends in some of the data. For example, in a

meta-analysis performed at the University of Cologne, Germany, Prof.

Thomas C. Erren found a 12 percent increased risk of cancer in women

and a 37 percent increase in men that seemed attributable to EMF

exposure. Yet, like most scientists in the field, he adds a note of

caution, noting " probable misclassification of exposure and the

possible misclassification of the disease itself. " (Erren 2001)

 

Scandinavian researchers have identified an increased risk for

acoustic neuroma (i.e., a benign tumor of the eighth cranial nerve) in

cell phone users, and a slightly increased risk of malignant brain

tumors such as astrocytoma and meningioma on the same side of the

brain as the cell phone was habitually held. However, the authors of

this latter study have acknowledged some methodological concerns, and

further investigations are planned in order to determine whether such

an association can be definitively established with statistical

significance (Hardell 2004 and 2005).

 

Most recently, the aforementioned Dr. Djemal Beniashvili and other

scientists at the Edith Wolfson Medical Center, Holon, Israel

postulated a link between exposure to power frequency fields and

breast cancer in elderly women. They made an extensive study of

medical records extending over a period of 26 years, involving the

analysis of over 200,000 biopsy and surgery samples. They then

compared the breast cancer rates in elderly women from an earlier

period (1978-1990) to a more recent period (1991-2003), which has been

characterized by a much more extensive use of personal computers (more

than 3 hours a day), mobile/cell telephones, television sets, air

conditioners and other household electrical appliances.

 

Among the elderly women who developed breast cancer in the first time

frame, 19.5 percent were regularly exposed to power frequency fields.

But in the more modern period 51.1 percent were so exposed, mainly

through the use of personal computers. The authors conclude: " There

was a statistically significant influence of EMF [electromagnetic

fields, ed.] on the formation of all observed epithelial mammary

tumors in Group II. " This represented a more than two-fold increase,

which was considered highly significant (Beniashvili 2005).

 

Of course, many other environmental factors have changed since the

period 1978-1990, but increased environmental exposure to power

frequency fields is among the more conspicuous changes to have taken

place. And while there is a body of evidence that contradicts the

findings of Dr. Beniashvili and his colleagues, again, there are many

aspects of this question that remain to be clarified. The issue is far

from conclusively settled.

 

It is therefore highly inappropriate for the ACS to deride the

misgivings of the public on the question of radiofrequency

electromagnetic fields and their possible association with cancer. I

have seen the credentials and motivation of those who raise doubts

about the safety of RFEMF questioned. However, the researchers who

have raised doubts about the safety of RFEMFs are neither avaricious

lawyers nor sensation-seeking journalists, but serious scientists,

trying to do an important job in a rational, dispassionate way. For

example, the senior author of this Israeli paper, Dr. Itzhak Zusman,

is himself the author of 139 PubMed-listed articles, 80 of which

relate to cancer. S. Ozen, who coauthored the paper on EMFs and

thyroid function, is similarly well established, with 212

PubMed-listed papers to his credit.

 

What To Do

 

 

While it is far from clear that there is a cause and effect

relationship between cell phones (or RFEMF in general) and cancer, too

little is known about the actual effects to dismiss the possibility

out of hand, the way the ACS does. Caution would therefore be advised.

History is filled with examples of " perfectly safe " environmental

factors that later turned out to be harmful, if not disastrous. As a

child, I badgered my mother to let me have my feet fluoroscoped in the

local shoe store. A cautious lady, she limited my exposure to a single

occasion during which I got a brief and eerie glimpse of the bones in

my feet. These machines were later banned after some were found to be

pumping out as much as 116 roentgens of radiation - a huge dose for a

trivial purpose.

 

As a young man I also listened to advertisements touting the health

benefits of tobacco by TV personality Arthur " Buy 'Em By the Carton "

Godfrey, among many others. Even the American Medical Association

(AMA) accepted tobacco advertising in its journals, with such

statements as, " They won't harm anybody. They will prove enjoyable. "

Arthur Godfrey himself later died of emphysema, a disease most

commonly caused by smoking.

 

And even though I am generally cautious when it comes to prescription

medications, I succumbed to the blandishments of the pharmaceutical

companies and took Vioxx for a backache – and even prevailed upon a

naturopathic physician friend to do the same. Everyone now knows that

Vioxx turned out to greatly increase the risk of heart attacks and

strokes.

 

Click on or go the the following address for my earlier newsletter on

Vioxx:

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/010905.html

 

However, one is never too old to learn caution. Thus, while I am

writing this newsletter on a laptop computer that is literally on my

knee, I have placed between it and my body a thick sheet of lead from

the hardware store, encased in a comfortable flannel sleeve. I have

even bent the front of the shield into a wide lip, because tests with

a hand-held Gaussmeter tell me that much of the electromagnetic

radiation leaks from the front of the machine, although the intensity

of the reading drops off dramatically within a few inches from the

screen. In general, I try to reduce all unnecessary exposures to

electromagnetic fields, especially while I am sleeping, by switching

off the electric blanket and keeping electric appliances such as

radios, clocks, etc., away from my bed.

 

I do own and sometimes use a cell phone, but limit my exposure to its

electromagnetic fields. I generally try to use it in speakerphone mode

and limit the length of conversations as much as possible. And I take

supplemental antioxidants with the intention of reducing free radical

damage.

 

In this, as in other matters, I think the Precautionary Principle

applies. If the consequences of an action concerning the use of

technology are unknown, but are possibly highly negative, then it is

better to limit exposure rather than risk the uncertain, but possibly

very negative, consequences.

 

In my opinion, the ACS has insulted the thinking public and done a

disservice to honest scientists who are trying to study the possible

link of EMF exposure and cancer. The issue is hugely important.

Cell/mobile phone use has doubled since 2000, and at present there are

1.5 billion rs worldwide (Garfield 2004).

 

By attaching derogatory labels to those who are on the opposite side

of the debate from themselves, the researchers at ACS will no doubt

please the $112 billion cell phone industry. But this does not advance

public understanding. It merely stigmatizes as irrational all those

who oppose unrestricted technological change and thereby hampers a

necessary scientific and public dialogue.

 

 

 

Signature

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

 

REFERENCES:

 

 

Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M et al. A pooled analysis of magnetic

fields and childhood leukemia. Br J Cancer. 2000;83:692-8

 

Beniashvili D, Avinoach'm I, Baasov D, et al. The role of household

electromagnetic fields in the development of mammary tumors in women:

clinical case-record observations. Med Sci Monit. 2005;11:CR10-3.

 

Davis S, Kaune WT, Mirick DK, et al. Residential magnetic fields,

light-at-night, and nocturnal urinary 6-sulfatoxymelatonin

concentration in women. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:591-600.

 

Erren TC. A meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of electric and

magnetic fields and breast cancer in women and men.

Bioelectromagnetics, 2001;5:105–19.

 

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). What biological effects can be

caused by RF energy? Last updated April 3, 2002. Retrieved July 30,

2005 from:

http://www.fda.gov/cellphones/rf-energy.html#2

 

Gansler T, Henley SJ, Stein K, et al. Sociodemographic determinants of

cancer treatment health literacy. Cancer. 2005;104:653-60.

 

Gansler, T. Do cell phones cause cancer? American Cancer Society

website, 2005b. Retrieved from:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_11_1_Do_Cell_Phones_Cause_Cancer.a\

sp

 

Garfield, Larry. Mobile phone usage doubles since 2000, but growth to

slow. Infosync World News Centre, Dec. 15, 2004. Retrieved from:

http://www.infosyncworld.com/news/n/5636.html

 

Greenland S, Sheppard AR, Kaune WT, et al. A pooled analysis of

magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood leukemia. Childhood

Leukemia-EMF Study Group. Epidemiology. 2000;11:624-34

 

Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M, et al. Cellular and cordless telephone

use and the association with brain tumors in different age groups.

Arch Environ Health. 2004;59(3):132-7

 

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Mild KH. Case-control study of the association

between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant

brain tumors diagnosed during 2000-2003. Environ Res. 2005 Jul 12

 

Ilhan A, Gurel A, Arcutcu F, et al. Ginkgo biloba prevents mobile

phone-induced oxidative stress in rat brain. Clin Chim Acta.

2004;340:153-62.

 

Kheifets LI, Matkin CC. Industrialization, electromagnetic fields and

breast cancer risk. Environ Health Perspect. 1999;107:145:154.

 

Koyu A, Cesur G, Ozguner F, et al. Effects of 900 MHz electromagnetic

field on TSH and thyroid hormones in rats. Toxicol Lett. 2005;157:257-62.

 

McCurdy AL, Wijnberg L, Loomis D, et al. Exposure to extremely low

frequency magnetic fields among working women and homemakers. Ann

Occup Hyg. 2001;45:643-50.

 

Moulder JE, Foster KR, Erdreich LS, et al. Mobile phones, mobile phone

base stations and cancer: a review. Int J Radiat Biol. 2005;8:189-203.

 

Scott A, Dana KM, Stevens RY: Residential magnetic fields and risk of

breast cancer. Am J Epidemiol, 2002;155:446–54.

 

Information on EPRI retrieved July 30, 2005 from:

http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/electric_power_research_institute.ht\

ml

 

Information on fluoroscopes retrieved July 31, 2005 from:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_414a.html

 

Information on American Medical Association and tobacco retrieved July

31, 2005 from:

http://www.thoracic.org/chapters/ california_adobe/TobaccoHx.pd

 

(NIEHS website: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/emfrapid/booklet/results.htm )

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

 

Thanks to the following for reading and commenting on all or parts of

this article:

D.S. Beniashvili, MD, of the Department of Pathology, E Wolfson

Medical Center, Holon, Israel; Scott Davis, PhD, MS, Professor and

Chairman of the Department of Epidemiology in the School of Public

Health and Community Medicine at the University of Washington; and

Professor John E. Moulder, PhD, Director of Radiation Biology,

Department of Radiation Oncology, Medical College of Wisconsin.

 

All opinions expressed are those of the author.