8/8/2019 Monday - Michael Winn Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/monday-michael-winn-study 1/3

Monday, March 06, 2006

Reporter, Michael Winn looks at the SWI. 

By adminSWI @ 3:20 AM :: 14 Views :: What others are saying. 

Last year, I was asked to edit a translation of a technical book about effects of cellphone radiation demonstrated in studies conducted by scientists at a research institutein Russia. Russia and European nations have taken a conservative approach. Afterreading these studies, I read another book by Dr. George Carlo, an epidemiologist whohas written extensively about the subject. I now use a headset when I use the phone,and I cringe when I see anyone holding a cell phone against his or her skull.

I recorded an interview that I'm now transcribing for publication. Dr. Carlo is anepidemiologist and forensic scientist who has worked on several major health cases,such as the infamous, "Love Canal". He's the Chairman of the nonprofit Science andPublic Policy Institute, which publishes www.safewireless.org .

Because of Dr. Carlo's reputation for objective, rigorous, forensic science, he was hired

by the Cell Telephone Industry Association (CTIA) as the autonomous director of a $28.5million aggregate of scientific studies commissioned to investigate any and all potentialdangers from cell phone use. Eventually, there were 56 studies completed by scientistsworking in highly credentialed institutions around the world, and results were subject topeer review.

There have been no studies that indicated that human tissue had been harmed by theheating effects of radiation. However, many studies indicated that exposure to cellphone radiation produced adverse affects, caused by the radiation, and that some of these effects have led to DNA damage. In other words, there are effects other thanheating that are occurring when human or animal tissue is exposed to cell phoneradiation, greater in proportion to length of use, and related to the proximity of the

transmitting source. Moreover, there is evidence that tumors are occurring with greaterfrequency on the side of the head in the portion of the brain and inner ear that lieswithin the radius of the plume of highest radiation from cell phones.

I'm skeptical of "conspiracy theories". To me, the term, conspiracy, implies an intent inconflict with some public or private right or interest as if collaboration is a fault ratherthan looking at the responsibility for a damaging action. This is like saying that becausethere is collaboration among industry members and with government agencies, that theobject of this is conspiratorial. Collaboration is required in the telecom industry just toaccomplish standardization, sharing of bandwidth and interconnectivity. To attack thiscollaboration raises the question of intent. I have never heard George Carlo say, or seenhim write about conspiracies. The intentions of Motorola and Qualcomm and the FDA are

 just to do business. In the U.S., we are not required by law to look into areas of concern

where we are not presumed to have knowledge of dangers to the public, but in somecases we may be held accountable for even non-intended results of our actions. In alegal sense, the word, conspiracy, might apply if there is direct intent to collaborate withothers to deprive someone else of a right. It seems irrelevant and it is not what I hearGeorge Carlo is saying. After reviewing the cell phone health effect studies in three books, and hearing a brief summary of some cases in pending litigation, I conclude that the cell phone industry andthe US government, which has a fiduciary relationship with the industry, are in a bind. If litigation the cell phone industry is now contesting is found in the plaintiff's favor, there

8/8/2019 Monday - Michael Winn Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/monday-michael-winn-study 2/3

are serious business consequences. If they admit to the possibility of harmful effectsfrom the use of cell phones, and that they are putting people at risk of tumors and otherhealth effects, the cases already on the docket will hurt the industry and cause areaction on Wall Street, because there are so many cases possible even if cell phoneswere outlawed. In other words, it is impossible for the industry to admit of the danger

and make appropriate warnings and take appropriate steps to protect people withoutadmitting responsibility in the pending lawsuits. Therefore, in prematurely ending itssupport of the study Dr. Carlo headed, and in constantly spinning news stories to givethe impression that cell phones are harmless, the industry is acting rationally in terms of a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

The wireless telecom industry represents a huge part of our economy. The USgovernment has been making billions from the sale of bandwidth and this income hasbeen mortgaged-the fees come in over ten years but they are booked now. Moreover,there are an enormous number of jobs and billions of investment capital at stake.Telecom technology underpins the American economy. Based on what I've read so far,the epidemiological science is correct. Findings of the studies are not being contestedwith any rigor. As time goes on, if prophylactic measures are not applied, health costs

will be astronomically high, not to mention the litigation costs, and in view of the globaleconomic impact on one of the world's major businesses, these costs and litigation costswill likely be passed on to the public along with the tumors and other health effects. Therailway situation is a microcosmic illustration of a similar situation where a governmentalbody is cooperating with private entities in a not very well thought-out plan thatthreatens to impact our lives and environment. Is it a conspiracy? Irrelevant in terms of what we must consider to protect our interests.

George Carlo said that it is a dangerous mistake to conclude that cell phones are safebased on "incomplete information". It seems accusative. I feel it is justifiable. The $28.5million study conducted by the scientists in the program he oversaw showed linksbetween genetic damage and cell phone usage, which have been acknowledged by theFDA, for instance, http://cryptome.org/fda102099.htm. In this report, the FDA staff goes on to waffle about it, but the waffling does not change the accuracy of the findings.I understand that there have been two Worker's Comp settlements already. There's aline of pending litigation queued up that will be heard soon this year. The cell phoneindustry has been stalling the legal process through a number of procedural motions,however, as a result of a Supreme Court decision last October, the log jam is broken-thecases are now moving forward. The outcome could be significant.

People hear conflicting interpretations of studies: Dr. Carlo said that this is because,although studies have not shown that the heating mechanism of radiation, as we see ina microwave oven (which uses the same frequencies at much higher power), is notdirectly causing genetic breakdowns, repeatable, peer-reviewed demonstrations in bothin vitro and animal studies have shown cellular changes following irradiation from cellphones, and in particular cell membrane changes after irradiation that have lead to DNAbreakdown. I also understand these studies have been conducted at levels of exposure

less than a quarter to a half of the daily dosage duration experienced by many cellusers, i.e., 500 minutes per month vs. 1000 to 2600 minutes, common for many cellusers. Dr. Carlo told me yesterday that the www.safewireless.org website was recently set up.Some links may not be working. He said that many of the studies he talks about arefound in the three books he has written, which can be found at Amazon or Borders. Iquestioned him about the $10 fee for registration on the site. He said he has to find 

some way to fund the website and other educational activities. However, the point you

8/8/2019 Monday - Michael Winn Study

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/monday-michael-winn-study 3/3

make is that people should be able to get information without registering, let alonepaying a fee. I agree. I can't imagine setting up a website about any public interestsubject with a fee. On the other hand, how do you raise the money for media andcommunications to level the playing field with bureaucracies like the FDA and the hugeresources of members of some of the largest corporate enterprises in the world?