News feed for Lloyd Morgan's Powerwatch Column http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/index.asp http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/images/sidelogo.gif http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/index.asp The recently published study by Andreas Stang and team is an amazing turn about from his previous paper. The previous paper reported a strong risk (OR = 3.0) of eye cancer (uveal melanoma) from "radiofrequency-transmitting devices" and from "probable/certain exposure to mobile phones". The current paper is a repudiation of the previous paper. "Risk of uveal melanoma was not associated with regular mobile phone use (OR = 0.7). Yet we see an immediate problem in this sentence. This sentence should have read, "Statistically significant protection from uveal melanoma was associated with regular mobile phone use (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5 to 1.0 vs population control subjects)," because this is what was found, a statistically significant protective effect! How could this be? First the authors criticize their previous study because it had "incomplete exposure assessment." Let's examine the implicitly complete exposure assessment to determine if it is even a reasonable exposure assessment... http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20090212_eye_cancer.asp Lloyd Morgan Eye Cancer in Germany from Cellphone Use 12/02/2009 12:34:11 The Interphone Study is a 13-country case-control study on the risk of brain and parotid gland tumors as a result of cellphone use. In order to roll-up the results from all 13 countries, each of the individual country studies are required to use the Interphone Protocol. To date (March 2008) there have been two Interphone studies on the risk of parotid gland tumors (a salivary gland near the ear) from cellphone use. The two studies, using the same Interphone Protocol, reported diametrically different results. How could this be? The quick answer is that one study had far more tumors (cases) than the other. The longer answer is that one study restricted their study design to the highest levels of exposure, while the other study made no such effort. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080321_parotid_interphone.asp Lloyd Morgan A Comparison Between Two Interphone Studies 21/03/2008 10:48:00 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. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080218_takebayashi_interphone.asp Lloyd Morgan Commentary, Second Japanese Interphone Study 18/02/2008 17:09:00 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. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080108_interphone_design.asp Lloyd Morgan Interphone Study Flaws and Brain Tumor Risk 08/01/2008 12:34:00 Studies, independent of cellphone industry funding, with 10 or more years of exposure time have consistently found higher risks of brain tumors than the Interphone studies have. Why higher risks? It is because the Interphone study protocol has at least 6 flaws, each of which results in an underestimation of brain tumor risk. Yet, in spite of the 6 design flaws that underestimate the risk of brain tumors, the Interphone studies still find a risk of brain tumors. Perhaps if these flaws did not exist they would find the same elevated risks as the industry independent studies have found? Or, could it be that the Interphone protocol was designed to not find any risk? http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20080104_cellphone_propaganda.asp Lloyd Morgan Causing Damage without Heating 04/01/2008 09:28:00 This Interphone study shows, once again, a risk of a brain tumor on the same side of the head as where the cellphone was used. This is now the fifth of eight Interphone studies to show a risk of brain tumors from cellphone use, and confirms a Swedish study, independent of cellphone industry funding, by Lennart Hardell and his team. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20070202_interphone.asp Lloyd Morgan Interphone Studies, Mobile Phones and Brain Tumors 02/02/2007 12:42:00 Why does the public continue to be lulled into complacency regarding cellphone use? Perhaps, the dominance of the cellphone industry in the field of cellphone research has something to do with pretense of "no harm" regarding cellphone use. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060818_phones_tumours.asp Lloyd Morgan Phones and Brain Tumours 18/08/2006 10:22:00 This commentary is about the latest Hardell et al. scientific study on the risk of brain cancer from wireless phone use. It is the 13th in a series of papers published by this team [1-12]. Although every one of these studies has shown a risk of brain tumors from wireless phone use (cell as well as cordless), the findings in this study are the most alarming yet. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060817_wireless_tumours.asp Lloyd Morgan Phones and Brain Tumours 17/08/2006 16:28:00 The report remarks that since there was only a single malignant tumour, "the presence of a single case only of a primary malignant brain tumour within the population on these floor levels does not enable an accurate epidemiological analysis." This statement was made in the context that no "benign" brain tumour data is collected in Victoria. The report also states that a pituitary tumour is not a brain tumour stating that the World Health Organization (WHO) classifies such a tumour as "an endocrine tumour and not a brain tumour."

There was neither an attempt to examine the incidence rate of "benign" brain tumour beyond Victoria nor was their statement correct about WHO's classification of pituitary tumours. Pituitary tumors are classified by WHO and here in the United States as a brain tumour. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060816_rmit.asp Lloyd Morgan RMIT Cancer cluster 16/08/2006 09:47:00 This study combined the results of two previously published papers. The total number of brain tumor cases participating in the study was 1,429. The total number of controls was 2162 matched to the cases by age, sex, SEI (Social Economic Index, a measure of wealth), year of diagnosis and region within Sweden. Cases were diagnosed between 1997 and 2003. The percentage of the Swedish population that used cellphones during this period was around 30% in 1997 and grew to over 95.5% by 2003. The study's main finding was the risk of acoustic neuroma, but also reported a risk of the meningioma. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/20060329_brain_tumours.asp Lloyd Morgan Phones and Brain Tumours 29/03/2006 13:22:00