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:

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 subscribers 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.

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.asp

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.html

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.

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