Commentary: Second Japanese Interphone Study
Post Date/Time: 18/02/2008 17:09:00
While this study made two improvements, the existing flaws, particularly the short latency time, made it nearly impossible to find a risk. Because the study did find risks, it should result in a world-wide set of public health actions to substantially reduce the absorbed cellphone radiation. For example, the consistent use of a wired headset and not allowing children to use cellphones. The 5.84-fold glioma risk found for > 1,000 hours (2 cases) of use it confirms the Hardell team's findings of a 1.3-fold risk, for < 1,000 hours (355 cases), a 1.8-fold risk for 1,001 to 2,000 hour (26 cases), and a 3.7-fold risk for > 2,000 hours (21 cases). However, this study found a much higher risk than the Hardell study. Suggesting, because the > 1,000 hours was > 1,000 hours at the highest value for mean maxSAR, that higher SAR values create higher risk. Bottom line: in spite of the BBC's headline "Mobiles 'not brain cancer risk'", the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use exists.
Full Column Entry:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080218_takebayashi_interphone.asp
--------
Interphone Studies to Date, An Examination of Poor Study Design, Resulting in an Underestimation of the Risk of Brain Tumors
Post Date/Time: 08/01/2008 12:34:00
With five flaws, each independently underestimating the risk of tumors, it is no wonder why the Interphone studies report a large number of results suggesting cellphone use protects the user from having a brain tumor. The Interphone Study has substantial funding from the deep pockets of the cellphone industry. The additional cost to resolve these flaws could have been accomplished if the industry provided more money. In addition if the participating countries had anticipated the potential cost of a pandemic of tumors, the cost effectiveness of contributing substantially more funds, would have been obvious. Lastly, relying on the cellphone industry funding is equivalent to having the fox guard the hen house. The cellphone industry will state that there is a "firewall" between their funds and the research teams who do the study. While it is true that the cellphone industry provides the funds to another organization (UICC) which then decides on the teams that will do each study, the researcher are aware that most of their funds are coming from the cellphone industry. While I do not doubt the integrity of the researchers, I also believe there in an inheren conflict-of-interest best described by the saying, "Don't bite the and that feeds you." The fundamental problem is not conflict-of-interest. The fundamental problem is the Interphone Protocol. While I have no evidence, it would appear that the cellphone industry influenced the Protocol, if not actively participating in its creation. The end result is the Protocol is designed to not find any risk. That it has found a risk is sobering. Tragically, the window of time to do a large, well-designed case-control study is closed. Case-control studies require exposed and unexposed subjects. It is no longer possible to find unexposed subjects.
Full Column Entry:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080108_interphone_design.asp
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Interphone
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Hardell
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+tumors
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Lloyd+Morgan
While this study made two improvements, the existing flaws, particularly the short latency time, made it nearly impossible to find a risk. Because the study did find risks, it should result in a world-wide set of public health actions to substantially reduce the absorbed cellphone radiation. For example, the consistent use of a wired headset and not allowing children to use cellphones. The 5.84-fold glioma risk found for > 1,000 hours (2 cases) of use it confirms the Hardell team's findings of a 1.3-fold risk, for < 1,000 hours (355 cases), a 1.8-fold risk for 1,001 to 2,000 hour (26 cases), and a 3.7-fold risk for > 2,000 hours (21 cases). However, this study found a much higher risk than the Hardell study. Suggesting, because the > 1,000 hours was > 1,000 hours at the highest value for mean maxSAR, that higher SAR values create higher risk. Bottom line: in spite of the BBC's headline "Mobiles 'not brain cancer risk'", the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use exists.
Full Column Entry:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080218_takebayashi_interphone.asp
--------
Interphone Studies to Date, An Examination of Poor Study Design, Resulting in an Underestimation of the Risk of Brain Tumors
Post Date/Time: 08/01/2008 12:34:00
With five flaws, each independently underestimating the risk of tumors, it is no wonder why the Interphone studies report a large number of results suggesting cellphone use protects the user from having a brain tumor. The Interphone Study has substantial funding from the deep pockets of the cellphone industry. The additional cost to resolve these flaws could have been accomplished if the industry provided more money. In addition if the participating countries had anticipated the potential cost of a pandemic of tumors, the cost effectiveness of contributing substantially more funds, would have been obvious. Lastly, relying on the cellphone industry funding is equivalent to having the fox guard the hen house. The cellphone industry will state that there is a "firewall" between their funds and the research teams who do the study. While it is true that the cellphone industry provides the funds to another organization (UICC) which then decides on the teams that will do each study, the researcher are aware that most of their funds are coming from the cellphone industry. While I do not doubt the integrity of the researchers, I also believe there in an inheren conflict-of-interest best described by the saying, "Don't bite the and that feeds you." The fundamental problem is not conflict-of-interest. The fundamental problem is the Interphone Protocol. While I have no evidence, it would appear that the cellphone industry influenced the Protocol, if not actively participating in its creation. The end result is the Protocol is designed to not find any risk. That it has found a risk is sobering. Tragically, the window of time to do a large, well-designed case-control study is closed. Case-control studies require exposed and unexposed subjects. It is no longer possible to find unexposed subjects.
Full Column Entry:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080108_interphone_design.asp
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Interphone
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Hardell
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+cancer
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=brain+tumors
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Lloyd+Morgan
Starmail - 24. Feb, 08:07
