© Matthieu Ricard (born 1946) is a Buddhist monk who resides at Shechen Tennyi Dargyeling Monastery in Nepal.

Recently the Dalai Lama Center Canada organized a Peace Summit in Vancouver with the Dalai Lama and other Nobel Prize winners and speakers. One evening the rock singer and humanitarian Bob Geldof, whose Live Aid concerts have raised 100s of millions of dollars for Africa, made this passionate plea:

“For most of us, all we can do when witnessing suffering is to put our hand in our pocket. If a million of us do that, it is a lot of people, a lot of help, and governments should take note. We need to keep children alive long enough so that they can become the doctors and engineers of tomorrow. Without that something will wither and die inside of us.

Many of these children don’t have parents because of man-made mistakes like wars. In my life I have met extraordinary people such as Mother Theresa. She would tell me that she saw the suffering of Christ on the broken backs of the poor. I don’t see that. I don’t see God. I see the malignant hand of man laid bare. And if that is so, it can be remedied, because it we have done it and we can undo it. We can say: “Enough!” All this is the symptom of poverty revealed in lack of education and in ill health.

In terms of global wealth, the need is infinitesimal if the political will would be there. How many times do we have to manifest the will of the people to the politician and say: “GET-THIS-DONE!” How many times do we have to create African children’s choirs and pop concerts in order to convince human beings to join in the glory of humanity? What are we – a circus or a society?

In truth, the real need represents only a tiny proportion of national budgets.

In the case of America, it is 0.16% of the national economy. It is not that Americans are selfish. Surveys show that when asked what percentage of their GDP do they believe goes into foreign aid, Americans say: “10%”. And when asked “it that enough”, they say “no”. But when they actually find out that it is only 0.16%, they are dismayed.”

The Commission for Africa has requested a doubling of aid by 2010 that will total 50 billion US dollars. Three months ago, one private bank in Britain was given 75 billion pounds within 30 minutes to save it from going under.

Yet a billion people will go down, and the cost is less that one private British company, in an economic system representing more than 50 trillion per annum. And one of the world’s richest economies can’t find a fraction of that.

We really are a joke.

When we break our promise to the poor, we break the most sacred promise, because breaking this promise kills people.

About Matthew Ricard

Walter Mischel

Columbia University

Paul Meehl, in one of his last public speeches, memorably noted that most clinical psychologists select their methods like kids make choices in a candy store: They look around, maybe sample a bit, and choose what they like, whatever feels good to them.

New report in Psychological Science in the Public Interest, the result of a major two-year analysis that lays out the ugly truth behind this shady industry.

“Many clinical psychologists today, perhaps the majority, are deeply ambivalent about the role of science in informing their practice,” the authors write.

This report wasn’t written by some unhappy fringe or radical group looking to discredit psychology. It was written by a group of top psychologists, some of the few rays of light who see the darkness engulfing their profession.” William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

Connecting Clinical Practice to Scientific Progress

by Walter Mischel (pdf file)

Copyrights: http://www.psychologicalscience.org

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Walter Mischel

Walter Mischel (1930- ) is an American psychologist specializing in personality theory and social psychology. He is the Robert Johnston Niven Professor of Humane Letters in the Department of Psychology at Columbia University.

Early life

Mischel was born in 1930 in Vienna, Austria, from which he fled with his family to the United States after the Nazi occupation in 1938.^[1] He grew up in Brooklyn, New York and studied under George Kelly and Julian Rotter at Ohio State University, where he received his Ph.D. in clinical psychology in 1956.

Professional career

Mischel taught at the University of Colorado from 1956 to 1958, at Harvard University from 1958 to 1962, and at Stanford University from 1962 to 1983. Since 1983, Mischel has been in the Department of Psychology at Columbia University.

Mischel was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 2004 and to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1991. In 2007, Mischel was elected president of the Association for Psychological Science. Mischel’s other honors include the Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award from the American Psychological Association, the Distinguished Scientist Award of the Society of Experimental Social Psychologists, the Distinguished Contributions to Personality Award of the Society of Social and Personality Psychologists, and the Distinguished Scientist Award of American Psychological Association’s Division of Clinical Psychology. He is past editor of Psychological Review and past president of the American Psychological Association Division of Social and Personality Psychology and of the Association for Research in Personality.

Contributions to personality theory

In 1968, Mischel published the now classic monograph, Personality and Assessment, which created a paradigm crisis in personality psychology that changed the agenda of the field for decades. Mischel showed that study after study failed to support the fundamental traditional assumption of personality theory, that an individual’s behavior with regard to a trait (e.g. conscientiousness, sociability) is highly consistent across diverse situations. Instead, Mischel’s analyses revealed that the individual’s behavior, when closely examined, was highly dependent upon situational cues, rather than expressed consistently across diverse situations that differed in meaning.

Mischel made the case that the field of personality psychology was searching for consistency in the wrong places. Instead of treating situations as the noise or “error of measurement” in personality psychology, Mischel’s work proposed that by including the situation as it is perceived by the person and by analyzing behavior in its situational context, the consistencies that characterize the individual would be found. He argued that these individual differences would not be expressed in consistent cross-situational behavior, but instead, he suggested that consistency would be found in distinctive but stable patterns of if-then, situation-behavior relations that form contextualized, psychologically meaningful “personality signatures” (e.g., “she does A when X, but B when Y”).

These signatures of personality were in fact revealed in a large observational study of social behavior across multiple repeated situations over time (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Contradicting the classic assumptions, the data showed that individuals who were similar in average levels of behavior, for example in their aggression, nevertheless differed predictably and dramatically in the types of situations in which they aggressed. As predicted by Mischel, they were characterized by highly psychologically informative if-then behavioral signatures. Collectively, this work has allowed a new way to conceptualize and assess both the stability and variability of behavior that is produced by the underlying personality system, and has opened a window into the dynamic processes within the system itself (Mischel, 2004).

In a second direction, beginning in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, Mischel pioneered work illuminating the ability to delay gratification and to exert self-control in the face of strong situational pressures and emotionally “hot” temptations. His studies with preschoolers in the late 1960s, often referred to as “the marshmallow experiment“, examined the processes and mental mechanisms that enable a young child to forego immediate gratification and to wait instead for a larger desired but delayed reward. Continuing research with these original participants has examined how preschool delay of gratification ability links to development over the life course, and may predict a variety of important outcomes (e.g., SAT scores, social and cognitive competence, educational attainment, and drug use), and can have significant protective effects against a variety of potential vulnerabilities.^[1] This work also opened a route to research on temporal discounting in decision-making, and most importantly into the mental mechanisms that enable cognitive and emotional self-control, thereby helping to demystify the concept of “willpower” (Mischel et al., 1989; Mischel & Ayduk, 2004).

References

External links

• Columbia University Department of Psychology: Walter Mischel

elected bibliography

Media reports

• Lehrer, Jonah. “Department of Science: Don’t!” May 18, 2009. The New Yorker. [1]

Scientific publications

• Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley.
• Mischel, W. (1973). Toward a cognitive social learning reconceptualization of personality. Psychological Review, 80, 252-283.
• Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. L. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933-938.
• Mischel, W. & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268.
• Metcalfe, J., & Mischel, W. (1999). A hot/cool system analysis of delay of gratification: Dynamics of willpower. Psychological Review, 106, 3-19.
• Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2004). “Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification”. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (pp. 99-129). New York: Guilford.
• Mischel, W. (2004). “Toward an integrative science of the person”. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 1-22.

Autobiography

• Mischel, W. (2007). “Walter Mischel”. In G. Lindzey & W. M. Runyan (Eds.), A History of Psychology in Autobiography (Vol. IX, pp. 229-267). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

A Tribute to My Friend, Michael Jackson by Dr. Deepak Chopra (En Français plus bas, dedicated to “a loving soul” Grace) Michael Jackson will be remembered, most likely, as a shattered icon, a pop genius who wound up a mutant of fame. That’s not who I will remember, however. His mixture of mystery, isolation, indulgence, overwhelming global fame, and personal loneliness was intimately known to me.  For twenty years I observed every aspect, and as easy as it was to love Michael — and to want to protect him — his sudden death yesterday seemed almost fated.

——————————————————————————————————————–

Dr. Chopra thank you for the love and support you and your family are bringing to Grace.

Here is the French Translation of your magnificent Tribute to MJ (to be used as you see fit), that is the least I could do for an old time AUC friend and one of the sweetest souls: Grace.  

Above and beyond I will keep the word “love” and “joy” what a powerful lesson.

merci.

Joel    

——————————————————————————————————————–

Dr Chopra merci pour l’amour et le réconfort que vous et votre famille apportez à Grace.

Voici la traduction française de votre vibrant hommage à MJ (à utiliser comme vous le souhaitez), c’est le moindre que je puisse faire pour une amie de longue date à l’Université d’AUC et une des âmes les plus douces: Grace.

Et par dessus tout je garderai les mots “amour” et “joie,” quelle leçon extraordinaire.

merci

Joel

——————————————————————————————————————– 

Un hommage à mon ami, Michael Jackson 

 par Dr. Deepak Chopra

On se souviendra de Michael Jackson, très certainement, comme une icône brisée, un génie de la pop musique, qui est devenu un mutant de la célébrité. Cependant, ce n’est pas ainsi que je m’en souviendrai. Son mélange de mystère, d’isolement, d’indulgence, son immense renommée mondiale, et sa solitude personnelle, tout cela j’en avais une connaissance intime. Depuis vingt ans, j’ai observé tous ces aspects, et aussi facile qu’il était d’aimer Michael – et de vouloir le protéger – sa mort subite hier semblait prédestinée.

Deux jours auparavant, il m’avait appelé dans un élan d’optimisme, tout excité. Le message du répondeur disait: “J’ai de très bonnes nouvelles à partager avec vous.” Il écrivait une chanson sur l’environnement, et il voulait que je l’aide de manière informelle avec les paroles, comme nous l’avions fait plusieurs fois auparavant. Cependant quand j’ai essayé de le rappeller, la ligne téléphonique était déconnectée. (effrayé au plus haut point par l’attitude de la presse, il changait souvent son numéro de téléphone.)

Donc, je n’ai jamais pu lui parler, et la démo de musique qu’il m’avait envoyé est là sur ma table de chevet comme un symbole poignant d’une vie inachevée. Lorsque nous nous sommes rencontrés pour la première fois, vers 1988, j’ai été frappé par la combinaison de charisme et de fragilité qui entouraient Michael. Il était assaillit par la foule à l’aéroport, puis faisait un show exténuant de trois heures, puis passait en coulisses, comme nous l’avions fait une nuit à Bucarest, et buvait de l’eau, jetant un coup d’oeil à une poésie soufie alors que j’entrai dans la salle pour méditer.

Cette personne, que je considère (au risque d’être traité de ridicule) très pur, et l’est resté – lisait des poèmes de Rabindranath Tagore, lorsque nous avons parlé pour la dernière fois, il ya deux semaines. Michael illustre le paradoxe de nombreux artistes célèbres, étant essentiellement timide, un introverti, qui venait chez moi et passait la plupart de son temps seul dans un coin le soir avec ses jeunes enfants. J’ai toujours vu un père aimant lorsqu’ils étaient ensembles (et me demande maintenant, comme toute personne proche de lui, ce qui va leur arriver).

L’hésitation de Michael à grandir fait aussi parti du paradoxe. Mes enfants l’adoraient, et en retour, il répondait d’une manière enfantine. Il déclare souvent, comme les ex-enfants stars le font, qu’on lui a volé son enfance. Compte tenu de la valeur exagérée que porte notre société à la célébrité, dont Michael a été encensée sans répit, le public a été sans pitié vis à vis de sa douleur réelle et personnelle. Il devint une autre partie du tabloïd tape à l’oeil dans le style “Jacko,” décrit comme une créature changeante, étrange et comme quelque chose de bien plus sinistre.

Ce n’est pas à moi de faire des commentaires sur les troubles dont Michael souffrait, qui venait  de son passé, et qui ont été amplifiés par ses choix malencontreux dans la vie. Il a été entouré par des “facilitateurs,” y compris un grand nombre de médecins honteux à Los Angeles et ailleurs qui lui ont fourni des médicaments sur ordonnance. De nombreuses fois, quand il avouait franchement qu’il avait un problème, la conversation se terminait toujours par une diversion ou un déni.

Alors que j’écris ce paragraphe, les rapports d’abus de drogues se répandent à travers les médias et chaînes d’information. A l’instant où j’ai appris sa mort cet après-midi, j’ai eu le pressentiment que les médicaments avec ordonnance joueraient un rôle capital. Notre plus grand rapprochement, peut-être, c’est lorsque Michael avait besoin de vendre un livre  surtout comme un souvenir pour un concert. Qui contiendrai des images de ses fans, et aussi un court texte composé de fables.

Je m’assayais avec lui pendant des heures, alors qu’il révait de contes sembables aux Fables d’Esope sur les animaux, mélangés de mots sur la musique et de son amour pour toutes les choses musicales. Ce projet est devenu, après avoir arrangé le texte pour lui, “Dancing the Dream,” ceci fait strictement par amitié.C’est ce moment ensemble qui m’a convaincu du modus vivendi que Michael avait conçu pour lui-même: pour contrer la vague de stress qui accompagne le fait d’être une méga-star, il avait construit un refuge privé dans un monde fantastique où les nuages roses voilent l’angoisse intérieure et où Peter Pan était un héros, pas une pathologie.

Ce compromis avec la réalité est progressivement devenue insoutenable. il fit beaucoup d’efforts pour le préserver. Les privilèges sans bornes sont devenus une autre force toxique qui le conduisit à sa perte. Ce qui a commencé comme une manie, la timidité et la vulnérabilité ont été ravagés par des obsessions sur la santé, la paranoïa de la sécurité, et un isolement qui devint de plus en plus malsain. Quand Michael m’a passé la musique de cette dernière chanson , celle sur mon chevet en attente des mots appropriées, la procédure pour me faire parvenir le CD rivalisait avec les opérations secrètes de couverture par la CIA.

Mon souvenir de Michael Jackson restera aussi complexe et confus que pour la plupart des gens. Ses amis les plus proches vont serrer les rangs pour essayer de préserver le meilleur après lui. Allons-nous réussir à le sauver après tant d’années de distorsion des médias? Nul ne peut le dire. Je voulais juste mettre quelques détails dans le dossier en son nom. Mon fils Gotham a voyagé avec Michael comme technicien sur son “Dangerous” tour quand il avait treize ans. Cela aura t’il de l’importance que Michael se soit comporter avec discipline et de manière impeccable avec mon fils? (J’ai des frissons en me rappelant quelque chose qu’il a dit à Gotham: “Je ne veux pas partir comme Marlon Brando. Je veux partir comme Elvis.” Ces deux icônes étaient les obsessions de cet icône.)

La “nanny” de ses enfants, Grace Rwaramba, est comme une fille pour moi. Je l’ai présenté à Michael quand elle avait dix-huit ans, une jolie fille, au coeur chaleureux, du Rwanda, qui est maintenant adulte. Elle a gardé un oeil sur lui pour moi et m’appelait quand il était en baisse de forme ou trop proche du précipice. Combien déchirant pour Grace que personne n’ai eu l’instinct de protection et de véritable amour pour éviter cette journée tragique. Il ya une heure, elle était en sanglots au téléphone à Londres.

En conséquence, je n’ai pas pu m’empêcher d’écrire ce bref hommage dans la tristesse. Mais quand le choc sera passé et que des milliers de voix raconteront la trajectoire de Michael: brillante, joyeuse, conflictuelle, énigmatique, trajectoire bizarre, j’espère que le mot “joie” sera celui qui s’élevera des cendres et brillera comme par le passé.

In the early 1980s, he became a dominant figure in popular music and the first African American entertainer to amass a strong crossover following on MTV. The popularity of his music videos airing on MTV, such as “Beat It“, “Billie Jean” and “Thriller“—widely credited with transforming the music video from a promotional tool into an art form—helped bring the relatively new channel to fame. Videos such as “Black or White” and “Scream” made Jackson an enduring staple on MTV in the 1990s.

With stage performances and music videos, Jackson popularized a number of physically complicated dance techniques, such as the robot and the moonwalk. His distinctive musical sound and vocal style influenced many hip hop, pop and contemporary R&B artists.

Jackson donated and raised millions of dollars for beneficial causes through his foundations, charity singles, and support of 39 charities. Other aspects of his personal life, including his often changing appearances and eccentric behavior, generated significant controversy which damaged his public image. Though he was accused of child sexual abuse in 1993, the criminal investigation was closed due to lack of evidence and Jackson was not charged.

The singer had experienced health concerns since the early 1990s and conflicting reports regarding the state of his finances since the late 1990s. Jackson married twice and fathered three children, all of which caused further controversy. In 2005, Jackson was tried and acquitted of further sexual abuse allegations and several other charges. One of the few artists to have been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame twice, his other achievements include multiple Guinness World Records—including one for “Most Successful Entertainer of All Time”—13 Grammy Awards, 13 number one singles in his solo career, and the sale of 750 million albums worldwide.^[4]

Michael Jackson died on June 25, 2009,^[5] apparently after suffering a cardiac arrest.^[2] Jackson had intended to return to live performance. At the time of his death he was in the middle of preparations for This Is It, a series of 50 concerts that would have been held in London.^[6]

Michael Jackson performing

MJ says in…”Man in the Mirror”

live at the 1988 Grammy Awards with a Gospel Choir.

“IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE
TAKE A LOOK AT YOURSELF THEN MAKE THE CHANGE.”

POUR UN RESUME SUR MJ PAR MALLIKA CHOPRA:

http://www.intent.com/intenteditor/blog/intentcom-remembers-michael-jackson

Public Health Advisory: Mobile Phone-Brain Tumour

Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc(Med), PhD, FRACS

Key messages of this work:

http://www.brain-surgery.us/about_the_author.html

http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobilephone.html

* Mobile phones are convenient and frequently invaluable, yet exposure to their electromagnetic radiation is invisible. Therefore, any danger this exposure poses may be easily dismissed.

* Exposure is long-term and its effects on the body, particularly its electrical organ, the brain, are compounded by numerous other simultaneous long-term exposures including continuous waves from radio and TV transmitter towers, cordless phone base stations, power lines, and wireless/WiFi computing devices.

* A malignant brain tumour represents a life-ending diagnosis in the vast majority of those diagnosed. There is a significant and increasing body of evidence, to date at least 8 comprehensive clinical studies internationally and one long-term meta-analysis, for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours.

* Taken together, the data presented below compellingly suggest that the link between mobile phones and brain tumours should no longer be regarded as a myth. Individual and class action lawsuits have been filed in the USA, and at least one has already been successfully prosecuted, regarding the cell phone-brain tumour link.

* The “incubation time” or “latency” (i.e., the time from commencement of regular mobile phone usage to the diagnosis of a malignant solid brain tumour in a susceptible individual) may be in the order of 10-20 years. In the years 2008-2012, we will have reached the appropriate length of follow-up time to begin to definitively observe the impact of this global technology on brain tumour incidence rates.

* There is currently enough evidence and technology available to warrant Industry and Governments alike in taking immediate steps to reduce exposure of consumers to mobile phone-related electromagnetic radiation and to make consumers clearly aware of potential dangers and how to use this technology sensibly and safely.

* It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking, and directly concerns all of us, particularly the younger generation, including very young children.

* Scientists and physicians from some academic centres worldwide came together in mid-2007 to propose safer standards regarding public exposure to electromagnetic fields (Click the link for details).

The Web-based publication of this independent e-paper on March 20, 2008, follows 15 months of objective research by the author, involving the critical review of scores of sources in the recent medical and scientific literature, in addition to Press reports and Internet content. This e-paper represents a systematic and concise yet comprehensive review of this area to date and its findings highlight an emerging global public health concern. The decision to publish the entire paper on this single Webpage was made to centralise the data for the reader’s convenience.

The e-Paper (C) 2008, G. Khurana

CONTENTS:

Abstract

Disclaimer and conflict of interest statement

Aims and scope of this project

Hypothesis

Introduction

* Popular Press and Internet

* About electromagnetic radiation (EMR)

* About mobile phones and base stations

* About brain tumours

* About the rising incidence of brain tumours

* Look’s good but is it safe (Safety tips)?

* A matter of susceptibility?

Methods

Results

Clinical studies

Laboratory studies

Critiques of the clinical studies

Conclusions

Precautionary recommendations

References (Bibliography)

Images and information concerning acoustic neuroma, glioma/astrocytoma & brain tumour surgery

1. ABSTRACT:

The Abstract is a summary of this e-paper. It conveys the “take home” message of this report.

Mobile phones are an integral part of Society, with billions of users worldwide across a wide age spectrum. Although the availability of a mobile phone can contribute to the convenience and safety of an individual’s Life, the question arises as to whether “excessive” usage of a mobile phone can pose a health risk through exposure of the “heavy” user to low but repeated and eventually prolonged levels of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) at a relatively close proximity (“near-field“) to the brain, our key electrical organ. Given the widespread use of mobile phones by children and adults alike, the presence of any health risk posed by long-term near-field radiation will inevitably set the stage for the emergence of a global public health problem.

The key aim of this paper was to scientifically and objectively review data suggesting (“positive”) or refuting (“negative”) a relationship between mobile phone usage and the occurrence of malignant brain tumours. Following fourteen months of research involving a comprehensive review of over one-hundred sources in the recent medical and scientific literature in addition to the Press and Internet, the author concludes that there is a growing body of statistically significant evidence for a relationship between the overall length of use of a mobile phone and the delayed occurrence of a brain tumour on the same side of the head as the “preferred side” for mobile phone usage. The elevation of risk (increased odds) appears to be in the order of 2 – 4 fold. It is postulated that some individuals may be more susceptible to developing a malignant brain tumour when compared to others exposed to similar durations and strengths of electromagnetic radiation. The effects of this kind of radiation are likely to be cumulative and long-term and susceptibility to these effects may be genetically predetermined.

In the context of the fact that widespread mobile phone usage commenced in the mid-1980s (earliest in Northern Europe), with the first 10 years of widespread usage ending in the mid 1990s, and the fact that solid tumours may take several years to trigger and form, it seems plausible to expect that if no appropriate changes are made by Industry and consumers alike, in the next 5-10 years the aforementioned concerning associations will likely be definitively proven in the medical literature. Given this calculated “incubation time” and the commencement of mobile telephony’s mass deployment in Sweden, it is no surprise that Swedish researchers were among the first to report a positive association between cell phone use and brain tumour risk (see studies quoted below). A 2007 Swedish meta-analysis of the international long-term follow up data confirms this growing concern.

At this time, precautionary but strong recommendations for members of the General Public include (whenever feasible or possible): (i) using a regular “land-line” in preference to a hand-held mobile or cordless phone; (ii) using a hand-held phone on “speaker phone” mode held > 20 cm away or “in-vehicle hands-free speaker” mode as opposed to the typical “mobile phone-to-ear” use; (iii) minimising the use of current Bluetooth devices and unshielded headphone accessories for mobile phones; (iv) minimising the amount of time spent using mobile and cordless phones for all adults; and (v) restricting the use of mobile and cordless phones by children to emergency situations. For members of the Telecommunications Industry, the author recommends expediting the development and promotion of safe, practical and ubiquitous EMR/radiofrequency shielding devices for mobile and cordless phones and their Bluetooth and headset accessories, and further refinement of the hands-free “speaker phone” option. For members of the Health and Scientific Communities, the author recommends the objective reanalysis of all previous large-scale population studies that reported finding “no link between mobile phones and brain tumours”, particularly from the perspectives of whether those “apparently negative or inconclusive studies” examined: (i) groups of “heavy” mobile phone users followed for greater than 10 years; (ii) the occurrence of the key mobile telephony-associated brain tumours, namely acoustic neuroma (vestibular Schwannoma) and astrocytoma, in the study population; and (iii) the relationship between the side of the brain tumour and the “preferred side” for mobile phone usage among “heavy” users in whom a brain tumour developed. Further large-scale studies taking all of these perspectives into account are recommended and encouraged by the author in order to definitively validate or refute the conclusions of this e-paper. Finally, the aforementioned precautions should be communicated to all at-risk persons using mobile phones.

2. DISCLAIMER & CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT:

The Disclaimer denotes the responsibilities of the author and readers alike regarding the findings and recommendations of this work. The Conflict of Interest Statement discloses any specific relationship, financial or other, between the author and other persons, organisations or companies that can potentially detract from the independence and objectivity of this work.

Disclaimer:

* Findings, conclusions and/or opinions communicated by the author of this e-paper are based on his independent research. This communicated material represents the evidence-based conclusions and opinions of the author alone, and do not necessarily reflect those of other individuals or third parties. No institutional or company support or endorsement is intended by this communication, and none was received by the author for this work prior to this publication. Any recommendations made by the author should be independently and appropriately evaluated by the reader. The author accepts no responsibility and no liability for any negative actions of any person or group pertaining to the contents or recommendations of this paper.

* It should be clearly understood that this paper in no way intends to defame or detract from the many positive contributions made by the Telecommunications Industry and its potential regulators. The author himself relies upon wireless technologies, although uses them with due caution; see safety tips. This paper should be regarded as a timely, objective and scientific marker for immediately improving the technological safety, while enhancing Public awareness and regulatory monitoring of these devices and their dissemination.

Conflict of Interest Statement:

* The author declares that there is no financial or other conflict of interest in the research and communication of this unfunded and independent body of work.

3. AIMS & SCOPE:

The Aims and Scope of this work relate to the reasons this paper was written and its intended audience and impact.

Aims:

* To scientifically and objectively review data supporting or refuting a causal relationship between mobile phone usage and the occurrence of malignant brain tumours

* To explore the concept of individual “susceptibility” to developing a malignant brain tumour

* To provide appropriate recommendations based on the present evidence-based findings

Scope:

* The General Public

* Members of the Telecommunications Industry

* Members of the Health and Scientific Communities (including Government health regulatory officials)

4. HYPOTHESIS:

The Hypothesis represents the central claim being tested by this work.

The hypothesis of this work is that malignant brain tumours can be caused by “excessive” and prolonged mobile phone use.

5. INTRODUCTION:

The Introduction covers views expressed by the Popular Press and on the Internet regarding the topic of “mobile phones and brain tumours”. Background information concerning electromagnetic radiation (EMR), and mobile phone and base station systems is also given in this section. Data regarding brain tumours and their rising incidence/occurrence are also presented. Finally, the concepts of mobile phone safety tips and brain tumour susceptibility are introduced here.

Popular Press and Internet:

* In early May, 2006, journalists for two leading Australian newspapers, namely The Age (May 12, 2006; Adam Morton & David Rood) and The Australian (May 13, 2006; Lisa Macnamara), reported that the top floors of a Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology building were closed after a seventh worker in as many years was diagnosed with a brain tumour. An official investigation found no causal link between the presence of mobile phone towers on the roof of that 17 storey building and this apparent “cancer cluster”. It was reported that five of the seven affected occupants of the building worked on its top floor, immediately under the mobile phone transmission towers.

* In January, 2007, The Jerusalem Post (January 26, 2007; Judy Siegel-Itzkovich) reported that “an important study by epidemiologists from five European countries…has found a nearly 40 percent increase in a type of brain tumour among those who had used a cell phone for a decade or more.” [This study by A. Lahkola, et al. (2007), subsequently published in the International Journal of Cancer, is reviewed in Section 7, below]. This press release goes on to state that: “The increase in gliomas [a very frequently malignant type of brain tumour], which was found to be statistically significant, was accompanied by a trend showing that the brain tumour risk increased with years of use…The new retrospective study is based on the data collected in Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the UK and included 1521 glioma cases and 3301 controls.” The article goes on to highlight the emerging concern among senior members of the US public health community regarding the need to put precautionary measures in place to limit non-ionizing radiation exposure particularly in children.

* Journalist Bellinda Kontominas (Sydney Morning Herald, January 26, 2007, and with the Telegraph, London) added the following in her review of the same Lahkola, et al. (2007) study reported by the Jerusalem Post: “Before separating out long-term users or looking at the different risks of developing tumours on the side where users held the phone, the scientists found no link between mobile use and gliomas. But when they focused only on those who had used a mobile for 10 years or more they found that they were 39 per cent more likely than those in the general population to develop a glioma on the side of their head where they held their handset. Kontominas’ article further states that: “The Chief Executive of the Cancer Council of Australia, Professor Ian Olver, said the study was not conclusive as it had only found the link when it looked at a much smaller sample. While any dangers of short-term use had been all but disproved, there might still be effects of long-term use, he said. “The best that I can say about this study is that it warrants a bigger study on the effects of mobile phones on long-term users.”"

* An on-line article from www.EMF-Health.com (MSN, June 7, 2004) entitled “Brain Tumours: The Silent Killer” quotes a pre-eminent Australian neurosurgeon, Dr Charlie Teo, as follows: “When patients come in with a brain cancer, I often say to them, “your cancer was on the right side of the brain, it is in the area just above your ear, can you tell me if you feel that you have had more exposure than most people to mobile phones,” and I am surprised that most people say, “yes I have used my phone continuously for the last seven years and it is always stuck to my ear on this side…” well that is where the cancer is.”

* The Website “Accelerate Brain Cancer Cure” states that brain tumours are the leading cause of death from childhood cancers among persons up to 19 years, the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in males ages 20-39, and the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in females ages 20-39. In 2005, based on a US population of 287 million people, approximately 44 thousand people would be diagnosed with a brain tumour yearly in the US alone. This reflects an annual brain tumour incidence of 15 people per 100,000 population (i.e., in the US every year, 15 new brain tumour patients should be expected to be diagnosed in each group of 100,000 people).

* As reported in the Sun-Sentinel in October 2005, lawsuits have been filed by attorneys representing individuals with brain tumours claiming they were caused by their mobile phone usage. Such suits are awaiting trial dates. Brain tumour patient Ms. Sharesa Price, through a Californian attorney, won the first law suit against cell phone companies. A popular press report relating to this can be viewed on YouTube by clicking here. This was also reported in a documentary entitled “Cell Phones: An Industry on Trial”.

* An article written by an eminent British physicist, Dr Gerald Hyland, is quoted at www.cancer-health.org. The original article, entitled “Physics and Biology of Mobile Telephony”, describes the thermal effects and the non-thermal effects of mobile telephony through both electromagnetic radiation and pulsed microwave radiation. Interestingly, the brain is recognised as an electrical organ. Per Dr Hyland: “To deny the possibility yet admit the importance of ensuring electromagnetic compatibility with electronic instruments by banning the use of mobile phones in aircraft and hospitals (a prohibition driven by concerns about non-thermal interference) seems inconsistent.” In other words, if cell phones interfere with aircraft and hospital electrical equipment (even at quite a distance), how can it be that they don’t interfere with the electrical equipment of the head (i.e., the brain, when held for extended periods of time right next to this organ)?

* A registered supplier of equipment to the US Dept. of Defence, Aegis Corporation, produces shielded equipment that the company claims makes the use of wireless technology safer. Their Website details the risks associated with unshielded equipment. According to the information posted on their site, both wireless (Bluetooth) and wired (unshielded) headsets pose significantly high amounts of cell phone radiation exposure to users.

About electromagnetic radiation (EMR):

* What is electromagnetic radiation? The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines electromagnetic fields on its Webpages dedicated to the concerns regarding the increasing presence of this form of radiation. In essence, an electromagnetic field is comprised of two components, one being an electric field generated by differences in voltage and another being a magnetic field generated by the flow of current. The field propagates at the speed of light (300,000 kilometres per second or 186,000 miles per second) in waves of a certain length that oscillate at a certain frequency (number of oscillations or cycles per second). In the electromagnetic range, gamma rays given off by radioactive materials, cosmic rays, and X-rays are all dangerous to humans and other organisms because of the relatively high energy “quanta” (packets) they carry (high frequency or short-wavelength waves). Such rays lead to “dangerous radiation” (ionizing; i.e., with an ability to break bonds between molecules). Mobile phone systems also act in the electromagnetic range (sometimes referred to as “microwave” or “radiofrequency”), however, the frequency (energy “quanta”) of the longer-wavelength waves associated with this technology is lower (and therefore safer to humans) and regarded as “non-ionizing” (of “insufficient energy to break molecular bonds” — however, this statement has been contested in the scientific literature; see Section 7 below).

* What constitutes mobile phone technology? Mobile phone technology, incorporating mobile phone base stations (antennae/transmission towers) and mobile phone units themselves, is associated with the production and propagation of electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range. The radio waves emitted by modern GSM (Global System for Mobile Communication; 900 & 1800 MegaHertz or MHz) handsets can have a peak power of up to 2 watts (2W), while other digital mobile technologies such as CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access; 800 and 1900 MegaHertz) and TDMA (Time Division Multiple Access; 800 and 1900 MegaHertz) have power outputs under 1 watt, levels generally regarded as being “safe” by most international governing authorities. The power generated by the handset can vary according to the amount of interference with the signal, a feature referred to as Adaptive Power Control (APC; see below).

* Are cordless phones emitters of radiation? As reported by Schuz and colleagues (J. Schuz, et al., “Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted from base stations of .. cordless phones and the risk of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)”; Radiation Research (2006) Volume 166; pages 116-119), one important source of low-level continuous exposures to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) is base stations of cordless phones that are located indoors, e.g., the Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (..) standard, operating at about 1900 MHz. These devices (both handset and base station) operate with 250 mW maximum power output, with their base stations continuously emitting pulsed radiofrequency radiation irrespective of the handset being in operation or not, and often with the base station being kept close to the bed head at night. Measurements of these base stations’ electromagnetic fields reveal power densities (defined below) between 4 and 170 mW/m2 for distances up to 3 metres from the base station (maximum permitted by law is 450 mW/m2); this magnitude is comparable to power densities measured in residences in the main beam of nearby cell phone base station antennae or in the vicinity of broadcast towers.

* What about “walkie-talkies” or “CB (Citizens’ Band) radios”? Unfortunately, these devices emit at relatively very high power outputs (e.g., 3-4 W) compared to mobile and cordless phones, even though their frequency bands may be lower. They are considered to be the worst offenders of all the mainstream hand-held “wireless” two-way communication devices in terms of electromagnetic radiation exposure. They are widely used by our emergency services, armed forces, construction sites, trucking industry airports and rural communities. Children use them without any knowledge of the potential dangers associated with such devices. Click here to view their relative electromagnetic “plumes”.

* What is the Inverse Square Law and how is it relevant to mobile telephony? The intensity of electromagnetic radiation varies with the distance from the source according to the Inverse Square Law. This means that the radiation’s intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the source and the exposed object. Applying this concept to mobile telephony, the further one holds a mobile phone from the head, the less the (intensity) exposure of the head and brain to electromagnetic radiation. This accounts for the relative safety of a hands-free speaker phone mode and, in cars, the use of hands-free car speaker/microphone kits (where the car’s roof acts as the antenna) instead of the mobile phone itself or an unshielded headset. Regarding car speaker kits for hands-free mobile telephony, The Australian Government Environmental Protection Agency states that due to the increased separation between the antenna (now the car roof) and the user’s head, exposure to electromagnetic radiation is reduced by about 100 times when compared to normal mobile phone use.

* What effects can mobile phones have on body tissues? The potential effects of mobile phone-associated electromagnetic radiation on tissues include “thermal” and “non-thermal”. Thermal effects are due to tissues being heated by rotations of molecules induced by the electromagnetic field. In the case of a cell phone, the head/ear surfaces close to the phone may be induced to heat. This heating has been thought to cause molecules within cells called “heat-shock proteins” to become activated and repeated activation of such proteins by microwaves/electromagnetic radiation can lead to cellular events culminating in cancerous transformation of the cell (C. Jolly & R.I. Morimoto, “Role of heat-shock response and molecular chaperones in oncogenesis and cell death”; Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2000) Volume 92; pages 1564-1761). Non-thermal effects are due to low-frequency (but long-term) “pulsing” of the carrier signal. Non-thermal effects from microwaves similar to those generated by mobile phones have been implicated in genetic (DNA) molecule damage. This remains contentious and is elaborated in Section 7, below.

* What is the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR)? The Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) measures the rate at which radiation is absorbed by the human body. For the head, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC; USA) has set a SAR of 1.6 W/kg. The SAR is 0.08 W/kg averaged over the body as defined by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines. The averaging volume (e.g., “head” versus “whole body”) must be specified in order to make meaningful and less ambiguous interpretations of stated SAR values between emitters and between receivers. Note that the human head weighs about 9 pounds or 4 kg, while the average adult male weighs around 180 lbs or 80 kg). A SAR of 4 W/kg is associated with a 1 degree temperature rise in humans. Although current mobile phones operate with power outputs that fall within “acceptable government-set limits”, local thermal or heating effects on the head may still be quite apparent to users after prolonged usage. The underlying brain is also heated as depicted on an Australian Government Webpage. In mobile telephony, the specific absorption rate or SAR depends on several factors, including the antenna type and position, the distance between the phone and the head, and the power output of the phone (which through “adaptive power control” can change during the conversation; see below).

* What is Adaptive power control (APC) and how is it relevant? The level of electromagnetic radiation a user’s head may be exposed to during mobile phone telephony can vary during the conversation, according to the variable power output of the phone. The operator’s network controls and adjusts the output power of each connected mobile phone to the lowest level compatible with a good signal quality. This is obtained by scaling the power from the maximum (1 or 2 W at 1800 MHz and 900 MHz, respectively) down to as low as 1 milliW. Such “adaptive power control” takes place continuously, with the selected power level depending on several factors, including the distance from the base station, the presence of physical obstacles (such as tall buildings), whether the phone is used indoors or outdoors, and “handovers” between linked base stations (during handovers, the output power of the phone is generally set to the highest level; S. Lonn, et al., “Output power levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications for exposure assessment”; Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2004) Volume 61; pages 769-772). In other words, deep in a building or in a moving elevator, the handset’s power output increases temporarily in order to pick up a base-station’s signal so that the phone users can continue to communicate effectively. During this higher power transmission, the user’s head is subjected to more than the usual amount of electromagnetic radiation from the mobile phone.

* What is magnetic flux density? The term magnetic flux is used to describe the field that results when a magnetic field is present in any material. The unit of magnetic flux is the Weber (Wb), being that flux which, when linked with a single turn, generates an electromagnetic field of 1 volt in the turn, as it decreases uniformly to 0 in 1 second. When the magnetic flux (in Wb) is averaged over an area of a square meter, the magnetic flux density is known. The unit of magnetic flux density is the Tesla (T), being Wb/square metre. As stated by Petrucci (N. Petrucci, “Exposure of the critically ill patient to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields in the intensive care environment”; Intensive Care Medicine (1999) Volume 25; pages 847-851), “the value of 0.20 microTesla of magnetic flux density has been empirically defined as a safety threshold for exposure of the whole body to extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields, considering that nervous tissue has the lowest tolerance.”

* What is magnetic power flux density? The rate of flow of electromagnetic energy per unit area is used to measure the amount of radiation at a given point from a transmitting antenna. This quantity is expressed in units of Watts per square meter (W/m2) or milliWatts per square cm (mW/cm2). The maximum exposure level for members of the Public exposed to electromagnetic radiation at 900MHz is 0.45 W/m2. This figure can be compared with the amount of heat radiated by the human body at room temperature of about 2W/m2. Although this level of permitted exposure to mobile telephony-related electromagnetic radiation is low, it is nonetheless constant in our environment, and compounded to by the use of multiple other wireless technologies at any given time.

* What about “exposure” to electromagnetic radiation? Exposure to the radiation emitted from mobile phones varies according to several factors, including: (i) the power output of the phone at any given time; (ii) the type of phone and the type and location of its antenna; (iii) the distance between the head and the telephone; (iv) a young child user’s versus an adult user’s head; (v) urban versus rural location during usage; (vi) the pattern of usage, i.e., the length and number of calls.

Mobile phones and base stations:

* The basics of mobile phone technology are detailed on an Australian Government Website maintained by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPNSA).

* Brief history of mobile phone systems (Sweden): Mobile phones and their networks were first deployed in Sweden in 1981 via the Nordic Mobile Telephone (NMT) System (analogue; 450 MHz bandwidth; 1st Generation or 2G). Mass deployment was present in Sweden by 1985. The analogue 900 MHz system started there in 1986, but was closed in Sweden by 2000. The digital system (Global System for Mobile Communication; GSM) started in 1991, representing the second generation of mobile phone systems or “2G”. The latest system currently in mass deployment is based on adaptations of CDMA and TDMA (Code and Time Division Multiple Access, respectively; 800-1900 MegaHertz; “3G”).

* About providers and users: Mobile phone technology consists of two main components, namely, the provider and the user. On the side of the provider are the base stations (the antennae on the earth’s surface which communicate with the phones). On the side of the user are the mobile phones themselves. Base stations emit electromagnetic radiation continuously, and at far greater power than mobile phones which emit electromagnetic radiation continuously only during calls. At all other times, i.e., between calls or “at rest” (with the “screen asleep” but the power still on), mobile phones emit a regular pulse of electromagnetic radiation in order for base stations to continuously keep track of the geographic position of the phones in their “cellular network”. Modern 2nd generation (2G) antennae are associated with transmitter powers of 20 – 100 Watts, although the latest 3rd generation (3G) antennae use less power, on average 3 Watts in urban areas. In rural areas, the base station power output is much higher because of the vast areas needed to be covered between base stations placed in remote regions.

* Why “Cellular”? The mobile phone system is referred to as “cellular” because, owing to the limitation of available radiofrequencies, it is divided up into cells. In the GSM system, cells consist of base station antennae emitting at specified frequencies, and a group or network of users whose mobile phones communicate at those specified frequencies. Geographically adjacent cells have different frequencies to prevent interference. The more users in a cellular network using their phones simultaneously, the greater the antenna power output. In the CDMA system, all cells use the same radiofrequency spectrum and interference is prevented by transmitting a code which repeats at constant time intervals. These time intervals vary from one base station to another and thus enable interference to be prevented. Transmitted power levels are kept to the minimum necessary to maintain good communications.

* About “dead spots”: In general, base station antennae must be elevated and located clear of physical obstruction to ensure wide coverage and reduce the incidence of “dead spots”. These “dead spots” represent areas where there is no signal due to obstruction from, say, tall buildings. Such “dead” regions are covered by “microcells” whose antennae have much lower power outputs of around 1 Watt, but are densely concentrated in urban areas. In general, the radiation from mobile phone antennae is beamed horizontally at the horizon with a slightly downward tilt which causes the maximum exposure to occur at a distance of about 100 metres.

* The urban sprawl: As technology progresses and data demands have increased on the mobile networks, the numbers of towers has increased tremendously, with little or no effort being made between companies to share such towers. Smaller but more numerous antennae throughout our urban environments have allowed for clear cell phone reception within moving elevators, in the centres or even basements of large buildings, and other previously “reception-poor” locations. The ability of a cell phone user to be “found” by a base station in an instant at almost any location on earth should be startling, and indicative of the widespread, now almost all-pervasive generation and propagation of mobile telephony-related electromagnetic radiation via microcellular networks.

About brain tumours:

* This Website contains pages dedicated to providing information about brain tumours. In order to avoid repeating that information on this particular Webpage, click any of the links below for further information and images regarding brain tumours. Note that, more recently, well conducted clinical studies have shown a significant link between long-term mobile phone usage and two classes of brain tumours, namely, acoustic neuroma (aka vestibular Schwannoma) and glioma (in particular, the malignant forms of “astrocytoma”).

About the rising incidence of brain tumours: In 1990, Grieg and colleagues (N.H. Grieg, et al., “Increasing annual incidence of primary malignant brain tumours in the elderly”; Journal of the National Cancer Institute (1990) Volume 82; pages 1621-1624) reported a 7% – 23.4% annual percentage rate increase in the diagnosis of malignant brain tumours in persons greater than 75 years of age, over the years 1973-1985. The reported incidence among younger persons varied little over the same period of time, suggesting a true incidence increase in the older population. This time frame predates the introduction of widespread mobile phone technology (which was beginning to take off widely first in Sweden in the mid-80’s), and the increase may partly have been explained by the more extensive use of imaging technology (computerized tomography or CAT scanning) during that time period. However, a true increase in incidence could not be ruled out but, during the time period studied by this particular group, was likely not due to mobile phone technology.

In 1998, Smith and colleagues (M.A. Smith, et al., “Trends in reported incidence of primary malignant brain tumours in children in the United States”; Journal of the National Cancer Institute (1998) Volume 90; pages 1269-1277) reported a 35% increase in the incidence of primary malignant brain tumours among children during the period 1973-1994, with a step-like increase noted in the mid-1980s. The authors suggested this increase was likely the result of better (or earlier) radiological detection and/or reporting trends concerning brain tumours in children during this time. Again, a true increase in incidence from some other yet-unidentified cause could not be ruled out.

Researchers in Sweden looked at the incidence of childhood malignant diseases in that country between the years 1960 – 1998. As reported by Dreifaldt and colleagues (A.C. Dreifaldt, et al., “Increasing incidence rates of childhood malignant diseases in Sweden during the period 1960-1998″; European Journal of Cancer (2004) Volume 40; pages 1351-1360), significant changes were found. Of the tumours of the brain, an increasing incidence of between 2-4% per year was found; the study included data from over 2,500 children with brain tumours. They concluded that changes in diagnostic criteria and better diagnostic tools may have contributed to these results. However, an argument against this conclusion is that their study found that lower grades of malignant brain tumours had increased during this time over and above the unchanged incidence of higher grade malignant brain tumours in the same population of children. As a result, a true increase in incidence (i.e., not related to better detection and reporting trends) could not be ruled out.

Further worrisome data was reported by Jikich and colleagues in 2001, who studied data from over 16,000 brain tumour patients. This group (P.J. Jukich, et al., “Trends in incidence of primary brain tumours in the United States, 1985-1994″; Neuro-Oncology (2001) Volume 3; pages 141-152) found when analysing the type of brain tumour (histopathological classification) and the age-group of brain tumour patients that the incidence of high-grade brain tumours had increased by over 5% per year in patients aged 20-64 years, but the incidence of low-grade brain tumours in persons in this age group had decreased during this time by the same amount annually. They also found that the incidence of nerve sheath tumours increased almost 6% per year in males during 1985-1994. Again, no specific cause for this increase was suggested by these authors, however they concluded: “Taken together, the results obtained in this study do not support diagnostic changes as the full explanation for changes in incidence over the last decade.”

Nelson and colleagues examined the incidence of acoustic neuroma (vestibular Schwannoma) in the UK population between 1979-2001. They noted that cell phone usage commenced in the UK in 1985, with a sharp rise in the registered number users between 1998 onwards. In their paper (P.D. Nelson, et al., “Trends in acoustic neuroma and cellular phones: Is there a link?”; Neurology (2006) Volume 66; pages 284-285), compared with the numbers of these tumours diagnosed in 1979, a greater than three-fold rise in cases was found by 1997, however only a 2.5 fold increase by 2000 when compared with the 1979 data. From this data, despite the increased incidence or detection rate of this kind of brain tumour, the increases preceded the widespread use of cell phone technology in the US, and the authors concluded that “the trends in acoustic neuroma are most likely explained by changes in reporting and diagnosis. However, given the long latency [i.e., the approximate 10-year time course for such solid tumours to grow and manifest neurologically], we are still at an early stage in observing possible health effects associated with cellular telephones.”

A large study looked at a change in death rates from brain tumours among mobile phone users in Switzerland from 1987-2002, compared with brain tumour death rates in Switzerland from 1969-1987. The authors (M. Roosli, et al., “Cellular telephone use and time trends in brain tumour mortality in Switzerland from 1969 to 2002″; European Journal of Cancer Prevention (2007) Volume 16; pages 77-82) concluded that mobile phone use was not a strong risk factor in the short term for mortality from brain tumours. Mobile phones were introduced into Switzerland in 1992. However, they recognised the obvious limitations of their study, namely, that it: (i) focused on death rates from brain tumours rather than brain tumour incidence rates; (ii) did not look at brain tumour histopathological subtypes (known from other studies to have marked changes in incidence rates over time; see above); (iii) didn’t perform any subgroup analysis on so-called “heavy” and/or “long-term” cell phone users; (iv) only had reached the cusp of long-term usage (10 years), whereas following tumour trends out to 15-20 years (to around 2008-2012) seems more likely to yield definitive results.

The Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) has recorded an approximately 15% increase in the incidence of primary brain tumours between the period 1998-2002 compared with the period 1990-1994. This increase has all been in the “MRI” age of the USA, a fact that suggests that the increase is not due to “better detection” or “earlier reporting”, since MRI was widely available in the US during this period of time. Visit the following URL for details of CBTRUS and its findings:

http://www.cbtrus.org/reports/reports.html

Look’s good but is it safe?

Safety tips: The following important points regarding mobile phone safety should be kept in mind:

Bluetooth ear-piece devices are NOT safe. Microwaves generated by the mobile phone are wirelessly transferred and directly transmitted into the ear canal and surrounding head region via the coupled blue tooth device.

Wired ear-pieces are NOT safe unless they are specifically shielded against electromagnetic radiation. Wearing an ear-piece connected by a wire to a mobile phone in essence converts the user’s head into an antenna for the base-station.

Home-based cordless phones do not emit as much electromagnetic radiation as conventional mobile phones, however they are NOT to be regarded as being safe owing to the longer usage time (typically cheaper calling rates) associated with home-based calling plans. Using such phones for less time and on “speaker-phone” mode with the cordless phone held at least 20 cm from the head is a safer alternative to holding them close to the side of the head.

The desktop base stations associated with cordless phones emit a constant electromagnetic radiation plume of up to 3 metres in diameter, and so are best not kept close to the head for prolonged periods of time such as overnight.

“Walkie-talkies” are NOT safe. They emit very high levels of electromagnetic radiation, up to 50 times more than a mobile phone.

Keeping a mobile phone close to one’s head overnight is NOT safe. Even “at rest”, the mobile will regularly emit a pulsed microwave signal to its closest base station in order for the mobile phone’s position to be tracked in order to maintain its expected service.

A regular landline IS safe, in fact this remains one of the safest forms of electronic verbal communication.

Using the “speaker phone” option on a mobile phone, with the phone held at least 20 cm from the head is a safer alternative (inverse square law for radiation fall-off), however, this naturally compromises the privacy of the communication to some extent.

Using a mobile phone via hands-free car kit (where the car speakers and car microphone are used instead of the mobile phone being held to the side of the head) IS safe. Here, the car roof acts as the antenna, and the user’s head is at an acceptable distance from both the roof and the phone (inverse square law for radiation fall-off).

A child’s brain is structurally developing well into adolescence, has a greater relative water content and lower volume compared with an adult’s brain, and subject to more “plasticity” (structural and functional reprogramming) at a microscopic level. It is logical to expect that exposing a child’s brain to cell phone radiation is likely to cause cellular damage that, in due course, may lead to brain cancer. Children should NOT use mobile or cellular phones unless in an emergency.

About Dr George Carlo: This section is adapted from an apparently well researched article written by Don Maisch and published in the Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine in 2001 (D. Maisch, “Mobile phone use: it’s time to take precautions”; Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (2001) Volume 20, pages 3-10).

* As a result of a widely publicised court case in the early 1990s in America, where it was claimed a fatal brain tumour was caused by extensive mobile phone use, the Cellular Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) set up the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) research program in 1993. This research program was funded to the tune of $27 million to identify and solve any problems concerning consumers’ health that could arise from the use of these phones. A well-recognised scientist, Dr George Carlo, was invited by the CTIA to head the WTR’s research program. However, in February of 1999, George Carlo, who had previously maintained the Industry line that mobile phones were safe, stunned the industry with a report that he presented to the annual convention of the CTIA in California.

* Specifically, Dr. Carlo reported to the industry convention that, based on his research:

o The rate of death from brain cancer among handheld phone users was higher than the rate of brain cancer death among those who used non-handheld phones that were away from their head;

o The near-field electromagnetic plume of seven or eight inches around the antenna of the cell phone caused leakage in the blood brain barrier, a key anatomical and physiological regulator of brain “equilibrium” or “homeostasis”;

o The risk of acoustic neuroma (vestibular Schwannoma), a tumour of the nerves for balance and hearing, was 50% higher in people who reported using cell phones for 6 years or more; moreover, that relationship between the amount of cell phone use and this tumour appeared to follow a dose-response curve;

o The risk of rare neuroepithelial tumours on the outside of the brain was more than doubled, a statistically significant risk increase, in cell phone users as compared to people who did not use mobile phones.

* Importantly, Dr Carlo stated that appropriate steps were not being taken to protect consumers during the time of uncertainty about safety and that Industry continues to miss a valuable opportunity by dealing with these public health concerns through politics, creating illusions that more research over the next several years would help consumers today, while falsely claiming that regulatory compliance equated to safety. Dr. Carlo also said that he was alarmed that sectors of the Industry had ignored the scientific findings suggesting potential health effects, have repeatedly and falsely claimed that wireless phones are safe for all consumers including children, and have created an illusion of responsible follow-up by calling for and supporting more research.

* Dr Carlo has been regarded as a key whistleblower, and according to a recent on-line report, since the public communication of his findings, Dr Carlo “has been threatened, physically attacked, defamed, and his house mysteriously burned down.” George Carlo subsequently published a book (“Cellphones: Invisible Hazards of the Wireless Age”) about his alarming experiences as part of the Wireless Industry.

A matter of susceptibility: About “Exposure” and the “Exposed”: In models of cancer, there are two fundamental components. One is the “exposure” (the “source” – e.g., ultraviolet radiation, a chemical carcinogen such as in asbestos or cigarette smoke, or x-rays and gamma rays). The other is the “exposed” (the “recipient” – e.g., humans and the response they mount to the exposure). The contribution that each of these two components makes to the initiation and perpetuation of cellular processes that culminate in “cancer” can vary between places (since the type and degree of exposure may vary from one geographic location or environment to another) and between people (since genetic differences between humans can influence the ways in which those humans respond to the “exposure”). Variation in the type, length and strength of the exposure or in the response to the exposure is referred to as “susceptibility”. In other words, an individual may be more susceptible to forming a cancer if exposed to greater duration and/or strength of, say, some form of radiation; here the “exposure” has varied. Alternatively, two individuals exposed to the same amount and type of radiation, say from cell phones, may not respond from a brain cancer perspective at exactly the same time and in exactly the same way to the “exposure”. It is plausible to expect that genetic differences between individuals that govern differences in the ways the brain tissues of those individuals are “hardwired” at cellular and subcellular levels likely account for the variability of the response to low-level exposures. Naturally occurring variations in genes (polymorphisms) regulating heat-shock protein production, immune system function, DNA repair and cell cycle control/oncogene (pre-cancer gene) expression may be examples of why certain individuals respond differently to certain tissue stressors than others. Genetic polymorphisms also frequently account for varying drug “effects” and drug “side-effects” between individuals given the same doses of the same medications.

Anecdotal “occupational exposure” reports: There are many anecdotal reports (i.e., scattered reports of small numbers of individuals with certain conditions) regarding occupational electromagnetic radiation exposure and the occurrence of brain tumours in those persons (e.g., radar workers or cell phone testers and programmers). Such reports suggest that individuals in these professions may be more susceptible to developing brain tumours. For an example of these types of reports, refer to Richter and colleagues (E.D. Richter, et al., “Brain cancer with induction periods of less than 10 years in young military radar workers”; Archives of Environmental Health (2002) Volume 57; pages 270-272) and Brautbar (N. Brautbar, “Radid development of brain tumours in 2 cellular phone testers”; Letter in Archives of Environmental Health). Another example is a report of a brain cancer cluster in a University building with mobile phone towers on its roof. No solid scientific value can be placed on anecdotal reports such as these, despite their “suggestive” implications. “Microwave Sickness Syndrome”: Some individuals seem to be more susceptible to a so-called “microwave sickness syndrome”, where long term low level exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields may result in a number of symptoms such as headache, fatigue, sleep disorder, and memory impairment. In a thoughtful and apparently well constructed study of the presence of features of a “microwave sickness syndrome” among 365 subjects in urban and rural areas in Austria, Hutter and colleagues found that the presence of symptoms such as headache and difficulties in concentrating (but not sleep disturbance or fatigue) showed a significant association with the “dose” of microwave exposure from base stations. This dose-dependent association was found not to be attributable to subjects’ fear of health effects from these sources. The confounding effect of the copresence of anxiety and depression could not be ruled out in this study, however, this possibility was made less likely by the fact that the presence of “disturbed sleep” and “fatigue” as symptoms (more frequently noted in persons with psychological disorders) were found to be similar between higher and lower base station radiation “dose” groups (H.P. Hutter, et al., “Subjective symptoms, sleeping problems, and cognitive performance in subjects living near mobile phone base stations”; Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2006) Volume 63; pages 307-313). Contrarily, Rubin and colleagues carried out a well constructed double-blind, randomised case-control study of 120 people (60 of whom reported often getting “headache-like symptoms” within 20 minutes of using a standard GSM mobile phone; and the other 60 of whom denied such symptoms) exposed to 50 minutes of each of the following: A 900 MHz GSM mobile phone signal, a non-pulsing carrier wave signal, and a sham condition with no signal present. They concluded that “no evidence was found to indicate that people with self-reported sensitivity to mobile phone signals are able to detect such signals or that they react to them with increased symptom severity.” However, they noted among persons who self-reported being sensitive to mobile telephony, symptom severity did increase during exposure (even to a sham signal). As the authors state: “Indeed, for some they were so severe that exposures had to be stopped early or the participants withdrew from the study”. This finding was attributed to a so-called “nocebo” effect (an expectation of bad or “adverse” symptoms in the presence of some perceived bad or “adverse” effect or exposure; G.J. Rubin, et al., “Are some people sensitive to mobile phone signals? Within participants double blind randomised provocation study”; British Medical Journal (2006) Volume 332; pages 886-891).

Does where one lives matter? In 2001, Lonn and colleagues recorded the average power output of mobile phones in Sweden over the period of one week in different geographical areas of that country, then using a standard GSM system operating at 900 MHz and 1800 MHz frequency bands (the same as those used internationally (S. Lonn, et al., “Output power levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications for exposure assessment”; Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2004) Volume 61; pages 769-772). They found that in rural areas (where base stations are sparse — i.e., greater distances between mobile phones and the nearest base station), mobile phones were twice as likely to be operating at their highest power output and seven times less likely to be operating at their lowest power output compared to mobile phones in urban areas. Following up on this issue, in 2005, Hardell and colleagues (L. Hardell, et al., “Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas; Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2005) Volume 62; pages 390-394) reported a case-control study of nearly 3000 people in Sweden looking at the incidence of brain tumours between city-dwellers (urban) and country-dwellers (rural) between the years 1997 and 2000. The startling finding was a 3-to-4-fold increase in the incidence of brain tumours in the rural population compared with the urban population among persons using digital phones “heavily” for greater than 5 years (akin to a “dose-dependent” effect). At the time they did not have enough follow-up data to meaningfully analyse differences in the incidence of brain tumours among rural compared with urban populations using digital phones for greater than 10 years. They suggested a possible reason explaining this difference: increased power output from mobile phones in rural areas, owing to the presence of “adaptive power control”

(see above) capability in digital mobile phones and the fact that base stations were fewer and further between in rural areas compared with urban areas. Is it possible that mobile phones were being used more in rural areas than urban areas? Unlikely given the findings of Lonn and colleagues in a Swedish study that found that mobile phone usage in urban areas (175,000 hours) was seven times that recorded in rural areas (25,000 hours; S. Lonn, et al., “Output power levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications for exposure assessment”; Occupational and Environmental Medicine (2004) Volume 61; pages 769-772). Can exposures other than electromagnetic radiation account for increased tumour rates in the rural farming population? Ruder and colleagues surveyed approximately 2000 people in Midwestern non-metropolitan regions in a comprehensive case-control study (798 cases with brain cancer; 1175 controls without brain cancer) designed to determine whether environmental exposures to pesticides, farm animals, gasoline and solvents could account for brain tumour rates being higher in farming populations compared with non-metropolitan, non-farming populations. The study, carried out on behalf of the US National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health as part of the Upper Midwest Health Study, also considered exposures to television, dental x-rays, smoking, and alcohol, but did not specifically examine the role of exposure to mobile phone electromagnetic radiation. Overall, the authors found no increased risk of brain cancer associated with farm residence (compared with non-farm, non-metropolitan residences with populations < 250,000). The authors also found no association of brain cancer with broad categories of pesticides and other farm-related characteristics.
http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobilephone.html