HERE AT THE MOSS REPORTS

This week I continue a series of discussions concerning 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:

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 series of detailed individual reports on more than 200 different kinds of cancer. Each of these reports analyzes the current available treatments, both conventional and alternative, 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 Diane at 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 TWO

Last week we spoke about the possible link between radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RFEMF), such as are emitted by cell/mobile phones, and cancer. We continue the discussion this week.

Dr. Ted Gansler, with the full authority of the American Cancer Society (ACS) behind him, confidently assures us that people who worry that there may be an association between cell phone use and cancer are victims of an urban myth. Why, then, does Dr. Gansler feel the need to provide a website address for the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), which "offers advice to people concerned about their risk." He continues: "Experts from the CDRH explain practical ways to minimize exposure to radio frequency radiation while using a cell phone. Also, there’s the option of using digital rather than analog telephones."

I find this rather strange. If cell phones and other electronic devices are as innocuous as Dr. Gansler asserts then why does he encourage people to learn how to minimize their risk? Dr. Gansler and his ACS colleagues appear to be unaware that the FDA’s stated position is that "[i]t is generally agreed that further research is needed to determine what effects actually occur [from RFEMF exposure, ed.] and whether they are dangerous to people" (FDA 2002).

What the Science Shows

There are hundreds of published articles on the subject of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and the possible association with diseases including cancer. Scientists in this field primarily must rely on laboratory and epidemiological data (i.e., population-based studies), but these often reach ambiguous or contradictory conclusions. For instance, a recent review by scientists at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Madison, was generally dismissive of a causal link between RFEMF and cancer, calling evidence for such a link "weak."

However, while the authors felt that a straightforward cause and effect link remained unproven, the article concluded: "...the existing epidemiology is limited and the possibility of epigenetic effects has not been thoroughly evaluated, so that additional research in those areas will be required for a more thorough assessment of the possibility of a causal connection between cancer and the RF energy from mobile telecommunications" (Moulder 2005).

The key word in my opinion is "limited." The bottom line is this: almost all reputable researchers in this area concede that it is really not yet definitively known whether or not radiofrequency electromagnetic fields do increase the risk of cancer. Some people take this as confirmation of their view that such devices are safe. But one would think that while the issue is still very much under investigation it would be wisest for the ACS not to brand concern about RFEMF prematurely as just another "cancer myth." It seems to me to be arrogant to declare the debate closed while the near unanimous opinion in the scientific world is that the issue is still far from settled.

TO BE CONTINUED NEXT WEEK

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER

The news and other items in this newsletter are intended for informational purposes only. Nothing in this newsletter is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice.

CancerDecisions® PO Box 1076, Lemont, PA 16851 Phone Toll Free: 800-980-1234 | Fax: 814-238-5865 Copyright © 1996-2005 All Rights Reserved