Scientific Papers Which Add Evidence that Radio Frequency Radiation Is a Carcinogen Prepared by L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust Acoustic neuroma



Download 17.65 Kb.
Date02.06.2018
Size17.65 Kb.
#53078
Scientific Papers Which Add Evidence that Radio Frequency Radiation Is a Carcinogen
Prepared by L. Lloyd Morgan, Senior Research Fellow, Environmental Health Trust
Acoustic neuroma: 

  1. Moon IS, Kim BG, Kim J, Lee JD, Lee WS. Association between vestibular schwannomas and mobile phone use. Tumour Biol. 2014 Jan;35(1):581-7. Epub 2013 Aug 27.

    1. Tumor size increased 232% with cellphone use of >20 minute per day compared to <20 minutes per day. OR=1.073 (95% CI=1.008 to 1.141, p=0.026;

    2. Tumor size increased 273% with >2,000 cumulative hours of cellphone use compared to ≤2,000 cumulative hour of use, OR=1.086 (95% CI=1.023 to 1.157), p=0.007;

  2. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F, Mild KH. Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones. Int J Oncol. 2013 Oct;43(4):1036-44. Epub 2013 Jul 22.

    1. Analogue cellphone use, Change in tumor volume per year of use: 7.4%, (95% CI=1.0% to 14.2%), p=0.02.


Brain cancer:  French study reports data consistent to Interphone and Hardell studies.

  1. Coureau G, Bouvier G, Lebailly P, Fabbro-Peray P, Gruber A, Leffondre K, Guillamo JS, Loiseau H, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Salamon R, Baldi I. Occup Environ Med. 2014 Jul;71(7):514-22. Epub 2014 May 9.

    1. Risk of glioma (brain cancer) with ≥896 cumulative hours of cellphone use, OR=2.89 (95% CI=1.41 to 5.93), p<0.01; with ≥896 cumulative hours of cellphone use AND ≥5 year since first use, OR=5.40, (95% CI=2.12 to 13.25), p<0.01.

    2. Risk of glioma with ≥15 average cellphone calling time per month, OR=4.21 (95% CI 2.00 to 8.87), p<0.001; Trend for increasing risk with increasing average calling time per month, p=0.04;

  2. INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;39(3):675-94. Epub 2010 May 17

    1. Risk of glioma with 1,640+ cumulative hours of cellphone use compared to <5 cumulative hours of use, OR=1.82 (95% CI=1.15 to 2.89), p<0.01;

    2. Risk of glioma with 10+ years since first cellphone use compared to 1-1.9 years since first use, OR=2.18, (95% CI=1.43 to 3.31), p<0.001.

  3. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. Re-analysis of risk for glioma in relation to mobile telephone use: comparison with the results of the Interphone international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2011 Aug;40(4):1126-8. Epub 2010 Dec 17.

    1. Risk of glioma with >1,640 cumulative hours of cellphone use, OR=2.31 (95% CI=1.44 to 3.70), p<0.001;

    2. Risk of glioma with ≥10 years since first cellphone use, OR=2.26 (95% CI=1.60 to 3.19), p<0.00001.


Studies calling for either a Group 2A or Group 1 declaration based on additional evidence since IARC declared radio frequency radiation is a Group 2B (possible) carcinogen:

  1. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Using the Hill viewpoints from 1965 for evaluating strengths of evidence of the risk for brain tumors associated with use of mobile and cordless phones. Rev Environ Health. 2013;28(2-3):97-106.

    1. Calls for Group 1 classification (a human carcinogen); “Based on the Hill criteria1, glioma and acoustic neuroma should be considered … as carcinogenic to humans, classifying it as group 1 according to the IARC classification. Current guidelines for exposure need to be urgently revised.”

  2. Davis DL1, Kesari S, Soskolne CL, Miller AB, Stein Y. Swedish review strengthens grounds for concluding that radiation from cellular and cordless phones is a probable human carcinogen. Pathophysiology. 2013 Apr;20(2):123-9. Epub 2013 May 7.

    1. Call for Group 2A classification (probable carcinogen); “Hardell et al. provide new and compelling evidence for IARC to re-evaluate its classification of “a possible carcinogen”, with a view to changing that assessment of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones, cordless phones, and other wireless devices at least to a “probable human carcinogen,” i.e. Group 2A.”

  3. The Coureau et al study adds additional findings towards upgrading the current IARC Group 2B classification to either a Group 2B or Group 1 classification (see above).



Strong evidence for damaged sperm from cellphone radiation:

  1. Ex vivo (cells exterior to humans & animal) studies

    1. Avendaño C, Mata A, Sanchez Sarmiento CA, Doncel GF. Use of laptop computers connected to internet through Wi-Fi decreases human sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation. Fertil Steril. 2012 Jan;97(1):39-45.e2. Epub 2011 Nov 23. “CONCLUSION(S): To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the direct impact of laptop use on human spermatozoa. Ex vivo exposure of human spermatozoa to a wireless internet-connected laptop decreased motility and induced DNA fragmentation by a nonthermal effect. We speculate that keeping a laptop connected wirelessly to the internet on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility.”

  2. In vitro (cellular) studies

    1. De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 31;4(7):e6446. “CONCLUSIONS: RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring.”

  3. In vivo (animal studies

    1. Aitken RJ, Bennetts LE, Sawyer D, Wiklendt AM, King BV. Impact of radio frequency electromagnetic radiation on DNA integrity in the male germline. Int J Androl. 2005 Jun;28(3):171-9. “a detailed analysis of DNA integrity … revealed statistically significant damage to both the mitochondrial genome (p < 0.05) and the nuclear beta-globin locus (p < 0.01). This study suggests that while RFEMR [Radio Frequency Electro Magnetic Radiation] does not have a dramatic impact on male germ cell development, a significant genotoxic effect on epididymal spermatozoa is evident ….”

    2. Kesari KK1, Behari J. Evidence for mobile phone radiation exposure effects on reproductive pattern of male rats: role of ROS. Electromagn Biol Med. 2012 Sep;31(3):213-22. “CONCLUSION The present study showed that exposure to radiofrequency radiation … causes an increase in sperm cell caspase-3 activity which could lead to apoptosis during spermiogenesis or sperm maturation and affect the physiology of reproduction. The data also suggest that a decreased testosterone level and distorted sperm are possible cause of male infertility. These data are substantiated by a rise in ROS level after radiofrequency radiation exposure as reported in our previous studies, suggesting an adverse impact on health.”

    3. Otitoloju AA, Obe IA, Adewale OA, Otubanjo OA, Osunkalu VO. Preliminary study on the induction of sperm head abnormalities in mice, Mus musculus, exposed to radiofrequency radiations from global system for mobile communication base stations. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2010 Jan;84(1):51-4. Epub 2009 Oct 9. “The exposure of male mice to radiofrequency radiations from mobile phone (GSM) base stations at a workplace complex and residential quarters caused 39.78 and 46.03%, respectively, in sperm head abnormalities compared to 2.13% in control group. Statistical analysis of sperm head abnormality score showed that there was a significant (p < 0.05) difference in occurrence of sperm head abnormalities in test animals. The major abnormalities observed were knobbed hook, pin-head and banana-shaped sperm head. The occurrence of the sperm head abnormalities was also found to be dose dependent.”

  4. Human studies

    1. Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan;89(1):124-8. Epub 2007 May 4. “CONCLUSION(S):

Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.”

  1. Fejes I, Závaczki Z, Szöllosi J, Koloszár S, Daru J, Kovács L, Pál A. Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality? Arch Androl. 2005 Sep-Oct;51(5):385-93. “The duration of possession and the daily transmission time correlated negatively with the proportion of rapid progressive motile sperm (r = -0.12 and r = -0.19, respectively), and positively with the proportion of slow progressive motile sperm (r = 0.12 and r = 0.28, respectively). The low and high transmitter groups also differed in the proportion of rapid progressive motile sperm (48.7% vs. 40.6%). The prolonged use of cell phones may have negative effects on the sperm motility characteristics.”

  1. Li DK, Yan B, Li Z, Gao E, Miao M, Gong D, Weng X, Ferber JR, Yuan W. Exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of poor sperm quality. Reprod Toxicol. 2010 Jan;29(1):86-92. Epub 2009 Nov 6. With “… MF level > or = 1.6mG had a two-fold increased risk of abnormal sperm motility and morphology (odds ratio (OR): 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.0-3.9). Increasing duration of MF exposure above 1.6 mG further increased the risk (p=0.03 for trend test). … Our study provides some evidence for the first time that MF exposure may have an adverse effect on sperm quality.”




1 Sir Austin Bradford Hill in his 1965 President’s Address to the Royal Society of Medicine described nine “viewpoints,” not criteria.

Page



Download 17.65 Kb.

Share with your friends:



The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2024
send message
    Main page
Guide
Instructions
Report
Request
Review