7/27/2019 Lloyd Morgan

1/5

LLOYD MORGAN

Eye Cancer in Germany from Cellphone Use

The recently published study by Andreas Stang and team is an amazingturn about from his previous paper. The previous paper reported a strongrisk (OR = 3.0) of eye cancer (uveal melanoma) from radiofrequency-transmitting devices and from probable/certain exposure to mobilephones. The current paper is a repudiation of the previous paper. Risk ofuveal melanoma was not associated with regular mobile phone use (OR =0.7). Yet we see an immediate problem in this sentence. This sentenceshould have read, Statistically significant protection from uveal melanomawas associated with regular mobile phone use (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.5 to1.0 vs population control subjects), because this is what was found, a

statistically significant protective effect! How could this be? First theauthors criticize their previous study because it had incomplete exposureassessment. Lets examine the implicitly complete exposure assessmentto determine if it is even a reasonable exposure assessment

A Comparison Between Two Interphone StudiesRisk of Parotid

Gland Tumors from Cellphone Use

The Interphone Study is a 13-country case-control study on the risk of

brain and parotid gland tumors as a result of cellphone use. In order to roll-up the results from all 13 countries, each of the individual country studiesare required to use the Interphone Protocol. To date (March 2008) therehave been two Interphone studies on the risk of parotid gland tumors (asalivary gland near the ear) from cellphone use. The two studies, using thesame Interphone Protocol, reported diametrically different results. Howcould this be? The quick answer is that one study had far more tumors(cases) than the other. The longer answer is that one study restricted theirstudy design to the highest levels of exposure, while the other study madeno such effort.

Commentary, Second Japanese Interphone Study

While this study made two improvements, the existing flaws, particularlythe short latency time, made it nearly impossible to find a risk. Because thestudy did find risks, it should result in a world-wide set of public health

http://cabta.org/lloyd-morgan/http://cabta.org/lloyd-morgan/

7/27/2019 Lloyd Morgan

2/5

actions to substantially reduce the absorbed cellphone radiation. Forexample, the consistent use of a wired headset and not allowing childrento use cellphones. The 5.84-fold glioma risk found for > 1,000 hours (2cases) of use it confirms the Hardell teams findings of a 1.3-fold risk, for 2,000 hours (21 cases). However, this study founda much higher risk than the Hardell study. Suggesting, because the >1,000 hours was > 1,000 hours at the highest value for mean maxSAR,that higher SAR values create higher risk. Bottom line: in spite of theBBCs headline Mobiles not brain cancer risk, the risk of brain tumorsfrom cellphone use exists.

Interphone Studies to Date, An Examination of Poor Study Design,

Resulting in an Underestimation of the Risk of Brain Tumors

With five flaws, each independently underestimating the risk of tumors, it isno wonder why the Interphone studies report a large number of resultssuggesting cellphone use protects the user from having a brain tumor. TheInterphone Study has substantial funding from the deep pockets of thecellphone industry. The additional cost to resolve these flaws could havebeen accomplished if the industry provided more money. In addition if theparticipating countries had anticipated the potential cost of a pandemic oftumors, the cost effectiveness of contributing substantially more funds,would have been obvious. Lastly, relying on the cellphone industry funding

is equivalent to having the fox guard the hen house. The cellphoneindustry will state that there is a firewall between their funds and theresearch teams who do the study. While it is true that the cellphoneindustry provides the funds to another organization (UICC) which thendecides on the teams that will do each study, the researcher are awarethat most of their funds are coming from the cellphone industry. While I donot doubt the integrity of the researchers, I also believe there in an inherenconflict-of-interest best described by the saying, Dont bite the and thatfeeds you. The fundamental problem is not conflict-of-interest. Thefundamental problem is the Interphone Protocol. While I have no evidence,

it would appear that the cellphone industry influenced the Protocol, if notactively participating in its creation. The end result is the Protocol isdesigned to not find any risk. That it has found a risk is sobering.Tragically, the window of time to do a large, well-designed case-controlstudy is closed. Case-control studies require exposed and unexposedsubjects. It is no longer possible to find unexposed subjects.

7/27/2019 Lloyd Morgan

3/5

Cellphone Industrys Propaganda: Cellphones Cannot Possibly

Cause Brain Tumors

Studies, independent of cellphone industry funding, with 10 or more yearsof exposure time have consistently found higher risks of brain tumors thanthe Interphone studies have. Why higher risks? It is because theInterphone study protocol has at least 6 flaws, each of which results in anunderestimation of brain tumor risk. Yet, in spite of the 6 design flaws thatunderestimate the risk of brain tumors, the Interphone studies still find arisk of brain tumors. Perhaps if these flaws did not exist they would find thesame elevated risks as the industry independent studies have found? Or,could it be that the Interphone protocol was designed to not find any risk?

Brief commentary on the latest Interphone Study (Lahkola et al,

2007)

This Interphone study shows, once again, a risk of a brain tumor on thesame side of the head as where the cellphone was used. This is now thefifth of eight Interphone studies to show a risk of brain tumors fromcellphone use, and confirms a Swedish study, independent of cellphoneindustry funding, by Lennart Hardell and his team.

Industry-Funded versus Independently-Funded Cellphone

Research: A Scatter Plot Comparison of Outcomes

Why does the public continue to be lulled into complacency regardingcellphone use? Perhaps, the dominance of the cellphone industry in thefield of cellphone research has something to do with pretense of no harmregarding cellphone use.

The Latest Study on the Risk of Brain Cancer From Wireless

Phone Use

This commentary is about the latest Hardell et al. scientific study on therisk of brain cancer from wireless phone use. It is the 13th in a series ofpapers published by this team [1-12]. Although every one of these studies

7/27/2019 Lloyd Morgan

4/5

has shown a risk of brain tumors from wireless phone use (cell as well ascordless), the findings in this study are the most alarming yet.

Commentary on the Final Report of the RMIT Cancer Cases

The report remarks that since there was only a single malignant tumour,the presence of a single case only of a primary malignant brain tumourwithin the population on these floor levels does not enable an accurateepidemiological analysis. This statement was made in the context that nobenign brain tumour data is collected in Victoria. The report also statesthat a pituitary tumour is not a brain tumour stating that the World HealthOrganization (WHO) classifies such a tumour as an endocrine tumour andnot a brain tumour.

There was neither an attempt to examinethe incidence rate of benign brain tumour beyond Victoria nor was their

statement correct about WHOs classification of pituitary tumours. Pituitarytumors are classified by WHO and here in the United States as a braintumour.

Commentary on a Study of the Risk of Brain Tumors from

Cellular and Cordless Phone Use

This study combined the results of two previously published papers. The

total number of brain tumor cases participating in the study was 1,429. Thetotal number of controls was 2162 matched to the cases by age, sex, SEI(Social Economic Index, a measure of wealth), year of diagnosis andregion within Sweden. Cases were diagnosed between 1997 and 2003.The percentage of the Swedish population that used cellphones during thisperiod was around 30% in 1997 and grew to over 95.5% by 2003. Thestudys main finding was the risk of acoustic neuroma, but also reported arisk of the meningioma.

CommentaryCellular Phones, Cordless Phones, and the Risks ofGlioma and Meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)

This study, similar to all Interphone studies published to date, has severalserious problems. For one, its core findings report no risk for glioma or formeningioma from regular cellphone use (regular use is defined as atleast one incoming or outgoing call per week for 6 months or more). Yet, it

7/27/2019 Lloyd Morgan

5/5

reports a 2.2-fold risk of glioma after more than 10 years of cellphone usewith a 94% confidence that this risk is not due to chance. Also, it found a1.96-fold risk of high-grade glioma for women from regular cellphone usewith a 98% confidence. Given the specific problems of the study all ofwhich would underestimate the risk of a brain tumor these findings are

ominous.

CommentaryMobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults:

case-control study

In years past, this paper would never have been published because such alow participation rate of cases and controls would have, by itself, been acause for rejection. With only 51% of glioma victims (30% had died by thetime they were contacted) and 45% of the controls (29% refused toparticipate) participating, combined with more affluent controls than cases,there is little reason to believe any of the reported results.

Cellphones and Human Health

It is our contention, based solely on our reading of the scientific literature todate, that human exposure to cellphones poses a major health threat. Yet,everywhere we hear sanguine reports of cellphone use. (One of the latest

was a cheery story on CBS TVs Good Morning show, April 1st, 2005,regaling, without a mention of potential harm, the wonderful newcellphone products being developed by several corporations for 8-11 yearolds!) What is to be made of these differing views? The central thesis ofthis discussion is that the divergent views on the health effects ofcellphone exposure lie not in the truth of the scientific findings but ratherin the pre-existing interpretive booby traps unique to studies involvingbrain tumors, and indeed unique to studies of cellphone use, especially atthis stage of cellphone exposure. To therefore make sense of what cansometimes be seen as dueling studies and conflicting claims, thisdiscussion will try to provide a working understanding of the interpretivebooby traps which lay in wait. This examination will then be followed by areinterpretation of the scientific literature in hopes of providing a fresh look-and a more accurate picture of what may befall us with near-universalexposure to cellphones in our future.