The fact of these mechanisms – together with the metanalysis and other epidemiologic studies above – are consistent with the hypothesis that physiological effects from non-ionizing cellular phone EMF has adverse consequences that include behavioral abnormalities and brain cancer.

Do they prove the hypothesis? Nope — but as we know from the precautionary priniciple, waiting for proof is waiting for the body counts to pile up.

Do epidemiology statistics “only” show associations? Yep — by their very nature. Depsite this limit, epidemiolgy accurately revealed the lethal effects of lead, asbestos, vinyl chloride, PCB’s, tobacco, and many other toxins decades before the manufacturer-supported studies (and “scientists”) admitted the link.

For more, please check out microwavenews.com and pp 400-407 of The Secret History Of The War On Cancer.

Thanks again for the very good questions.

I’ll have to take up the references in the detail I’d prefer in later posts.

Here’s a brief overview:

(1)

Living tissue is vulnerable to electromagnetic fields within the frequency bands used by cellphones (from 800 to 2200 MHz) even below the threshod of power imposed by most safety standards (1.6 W/Kg for 1g of tissue), notably an increase in permeability of the blood-brain barrier and an increased synthesis of stress proteins [3,4,5,6]

(from the U Pitt Comprehensive Cancer Center Director and twenty-one of his global colleagues)

(2)

Rao VS et al, (March 2008) Nonthermal effects of radiofrequency-field exposure on calcium dynamics in stem cell-derived neuronal cells: elucidation of calcium pathways, Radiat Res. 2008 Mar;169(3):319-29

While about 60% of control cells (not exposed to RF radiation) were observed to exhibit about five spontaneous Ca(2+) spikes per cell in 60 min, exposure of cells to an 800 MHz, 0.5 W/kg RF radiation, for example, significantly increased the number of Ca(2+) spikes to 15.7 +/- 0.8 (P

Who cares? Well, the tiny little ionic fluxes that comprise our electroenchephalographic (EEG) activity include changes in Calcium (Ca2+) ion flow. This finding provides a possible mechanism for changes in brain cell function in response to cell phone signals.

(3)

Joubert, V., Bourthoumieu, S., Leveque, P. and Yardin, C. Apoptosis is Induced by Radiofrequency Fields through the Caspase-Independent Mitochondrial Pathway in Cortical Neurons. Radiat. Res. 169, 38-45 (2008). In the present study, we investigated whether continuous-wave (CW) radiofrequency (RF) fields induce neuron apoptosis in vitro. Rat primary neuronal cultures were exposed to a CW 900 MHz RF field with a specific absorption rate (SAR) of 2 W/kg for 24 h.

[snip]

A statistically significant difference in the rate of apoptosis was found in the RF-field-exposed neurons compared to the sham-, 37 degrees C- and 39 degrees C-exposed neurons either 0 or 24 h after exposure using both methods.

[snip]

Our results show that, under the experimental conditions used, exposure of primary rat neurons to CW RF fields may induce a caspase-independent pathway to apoptosis that involves AIF.

Who cares? Well, “apoptosis” is nerd speak for cell death. This study describes nerve cell death apparently caused by EMF at levels/frequencies emitted by cell phones.

For neurons — and their hosts — this is a bummer.

(4)

Oral B et al, (November 2006) Endometrial apoptosis induced by a 900-MHz mobile phone: preventive effects of vitamins E and C, Adv Ther. 2006 Nov-Dec;23(6):957-73

In conclusion, exposure to 900-MHz radiation emitted by mobile phones may cause endometrial apoptosis and oxidative stress, but treatment with vitamins E and C can diminish these changes and may have a beneficial effect in preventing endometrial changes in rats.

“Endometrium” is nerd-speak for uterine lining. This study describes cell phone signals killing of uternine lining cells: those things that feed the placenta.

This can be a bummer for uterii and their occupants…which lay people end up calling babies.

Here’s a partial list of studies describing compromised function and/or overt disease assoctiated with exposure to cell phones. The list includes lay descritions whenever possible:

(1) UCLA/Aarhus (2008)

A giant study, which surveyed more than 13,000 children, found that using the handsets just two or three times a day was enough to raise the risk of their babies developing hyperactivity and difficulties with conduct, emotions and relationships by the time they reached school age. And it adds that the likelihood is even greater if the children themselves used the phones before the age of seven.

The results of the study, the first of its kind, have taken the top scientists who conducted it by surprise.

[snip]

The research – at the universities of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and Aarhus, Denmark – is to be published in the July issue of the journal Epidemiology and will carry particular weight because one of its authors has been sceptical that mobile phones pose a risk to health.

UCLA’s Professor Leeka Kheifets – who serves on a key committee of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the body that sets the guidelines for exposure to mobile phones – wrote three and a half years ago that the results of studies on people who used them “to date give no consistent evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to radiofrequency fields and any adverse health effect”.

[snip]

They found that mothers who did use the handsets were 54 per cent more likely to have children with behavioural problems and that the likelihood increased with the amount of potential exposure to the radiation. And when the children also later used the phones they were, overall, 80 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties with behaviour. They were 25 per cent more at risk from emotional problems, 34 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers, 35 per cent more likely to be hyperactive, and 49 per cent more prone to problems with conduct.

The scientists say that the results were “unexpected”, and that they knew of no biological mechanisms that could cause them. But when they tried to explain them by accounting for other possible causes – such as smoking during pregnancy, family psychiatric history or socio-economic status – they found that, far from disappearing, the association with mobile phone use got even stronger.

[snip]

Professor Sam Milham, of the blue-chip Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and the University of Washington School of Public Health – one of the pioneers of research in the field – said last week that he had no doubt that the results were real. He pointed out that recent Canadian research on pregnant rats exposed to similar radiation had found structural changes in their offspring’s brains.

(2) Karolinska/Uppsala/Wayne State (2008)

Radiation from mobile phones delays and reduces sleep, and causes headaches and confusion, according to a new study.

[snip]

Published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium and funded by the Mobile Manufacturers Forum, representing the main handset companies, it has caused serious concern among top sleep experts, one of whom said that there was now “more than sufficient evidence” to show that the radiation “affects deep sleep”.

The scientists studied 35 men and 36 women aged between 18 and 45. Some were exposed to radiation that exactly mimicked what is received when using mobile phones; others were placed in precisely the same conditions, but given only “sham” exposure, receiving no radiation at all.

The people who had received the radiation took longer to enter the first of the deeper stages of sleep, and spent less time in the deepest one. The scientists concluded: “The study indicates that during laboratory exposure to 884 MHz wireless signals components of sleep believed to be important for recovery from daily wear and tear are adversely affected.”

The embarrassed Mobile Manufacturers Forum played down the results, insisting – at apparent variance with this published conclusion – that its “results were inconclusive” and that “the researchers did not claim that exposure caused sleep disturbance”.

But Professor Bengt Arnetz, who led the study, says: “We did find an effect from mobile phones from exposure scenarios that were realistic. This suggests that they have measurable effects on the brain.”

[The] study also complements other recent research. A massive study, following 1,656 Belgian teenagers for a year, found most of them used their phones after going to bed. It concluded that those who did this once a week were more than three times – and those who used them more often more than five times – as likely to be “very tired”.

Dr Chris Idzikowski, the director of the Edinburgh Sleep Centre, says: “There is now more than sufficient evidence, from a large number of reputable investigators who are finding that mobile phone exposure an hour before sleep adversely affects deep sleep.”

(3) Hardell/Hansson metanalysis (2007)

Using a mobile phone for more than 10 years increases the risk of getting brain cancer, according to the most comprehensive study of the risks yet published.

The study – which contradicts official pronouncements that there is no danger of getting the disease – found that people who have had the phones for a decade or more are twice as likely to get a malignant tumour on the side of the brain where they hold the handset.

The scientists who conducted the research say using a mobile for just an hour every working day during that period is enough to increase the risk – and that the international standard used to protect users from the radiation emitted is “not safe” and “needs to be revised”.

[snip]

The study, published in the latest issue of the peer-reviewed journal Occupational Environmental Medicine, is important because it pulls together research on people who have used the phones for long enough to contract the disease.

Cancers take at least 10 years – and normally much longer – to develop but, as mobile phones have spread so recently and rapidly, relatively few people have been using them that long.

Official assurances that the phones are safe have been based on research that has, at best, included only a few people who have been exposed to the radiation for long enough to get the disease, and are therefore of little or no value in assessing the real risk.

[snip]

The new study – headed by two Swedes, Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro and Professor Kjell Hansson Mild of Umea University, who also serves on the MTHR programme’s management committee – goes some way to meeting the deficiency.

The scientists pulled together the results of the 11 studies that have so far investigated the occurrence of tumours in people who have used phones for more than a decade, drawing on research in Sweden, Denmark Finland, Japan, Germany, the United States and Britain. They found almost all had discovered an increased risk, especially on the side of the head where people listened to their handsets.

Five of the six studies of malignant gliomas, cancers of the glial cells that support and protect the nerve cells, found an increased risk. The only one that did not still found an increase in benign gliomas. Four of the five studies that looked at acoustic neuromas – benign but often disabling tumours on the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness – found them. The exception was based on only two cases of the disease, but still found that long-term users had larger tumours than other people.

The scientists assembled the findings of all the studies to analyse them collectively. This revealed that people who have used their phones for a decade or more are 20 per cent more likely to contract acoustic neuromas, and 30 per cent more likely to get malignant gliomas.

The risk is even greater on the side of the head the handset is used: long-term users were twice as likely to get the gliomas, and two and a half times more likely to get the acoustic neuromas there than other people.

The scientists conclude: “Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for more than 10 years give a consistent pattern of an increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma.” They add that “an increased risk for other types of brain tumours cannot be ruled out”.

OK – this list is not complete, but illustrative. On to mechanisms…

For this reason, I believe any assumption that EMF mediated toxicity must be constrained to mechanisms already elucidated is a false and invalid assumption.

Well, I’m keeping an open mind about cell phones because they radiate with a pretty high intensity close to your head, but as far as radiation from 60 Hz power lines I think the verdict is in on them. Not only is the frequency very low but so is the intensity. And I believe the epidemiological studies have been pretty conclusive (correct me if I’m wrong). I saw a very good show on Frontline about that where they explained the “Texas Sharpshooter” fallacy: That’s where you shoot at the side of the barn first, then paint the bullseye. In other words you examine the statistics then adjust the thresholds until you see a pattern. And that fallacy was used on some of the early studies of EMF and brain cancer. (Studies by non-professionals, that is.) There was also a physicist on the show who said the intensity of the radiation was too low by many orders of magnitude to possibly have any effect on biological tissue.

Another issue is that the studies you linked to seemed to show a very small, barely detectable correlation. One study said cell phones seemed to double the rate of brain cancer on the side of the brain next to the phone. But twice and extremely small number is still an extremely small number. What is the rate of brain cancer in the general population, 1/100000? Something pretty small like that. So you’re increasing you risk by 1/100000. That’s not much of an increase in risk.

But Keith you have caused me to think about this a little more. Should I get a head set for my daughter? I’ll keep an open mind. Thanks for your interesting post.

On a more conceptual level, simply because we’re alive now we’ve no reason for concluding we’ve obtained complete comprehension of biology. Within living memory, DNA in eukaryotes was thought to exist only in chromosomes within the nucleus, mitochondria were thought to be just another organelle, and the central dogma told us information governing genetic expression flowed from DNA to RNA to protein.

Now, of course, we know eukayotic cells can contain plasmids, mitochondria are ancient symbiotes (thanks, Lynn Margulis!), and epigentic factors also play a role in regualting the expression of our genomes.

Hey — I think we’re all special just because we’re all alive. But just cause we’re alive doesn’t mean we’re so special we’ve lived to see the End Of Biology. Just as with the nifty proteins system that serves as the mechanism for chemical magnetoreception, there will be other new findings of hitherto unknown mechanisms in our biologies.

For this reason, I believe any assumption that EMF mediated toxicity must be constrained to mechanisms already elucidated is a false and invalid assumption.

oh well — i’ll do series of smaller comments by way of reply….

Thanks also for your observation at 148.

Conceptually, controlled studies have already demonstrated associations between exposure to cell phone signals (and other non-ionizing EMF) and increased risks of various malignancies.

Also concetpually, some studies appear to demonstrate cell phone signals are capable of altering stucture/function in living organisms/systems/tissues.

The latter findings are consistent with the fact that about fifty organisms have already been demonstrated to be sufficiently sensitive to EMF fields that our planet’s “background” EMF fields are known to affect behavior. These organisms include vertebrates known to undergo chemical magnetoreception in response to fields as weak as 30 to 60 millionths of one Tesla.

You’re welcome. Just remember that opinions are like noses, everyone has one.

I’m a statistician, not an electrical engineer. I do have a fairly broad background in epidemiologic studies. I have a son (now 19) who has worn analog aids since age 2 1/2, so the issue is of some personal concern to me too.

BC