Perspectives on Safety Standards in the context of the IARC 2B classification of RF

and the Precautionary Principle

Dariusz Leszczynski

Visiting ProfessorSwinburne University of Technology

Hawthorn/Melbourne, Australia

Safety Standards

- Based on thermal effects of RF-EMF

- Not accounting for other parameters of exposure

- Dosimetry based on macro-scale temperature changes

- Lack of micro-scale dosimetry

- Models do not resemble living matter

- Comparisons to classical heating do NOT apply

Macro-scale dosimetry

WaterSalt

Sugar+ =

Problem=

free movement of ions

Cell Dosimetry ”model” of the cell

Micro-scale dosimetry

Problems associated with the safety standards

No information whether/how cell phone radiation affects humans

No certainty that safety standards protect all users from anything besides thermal effects

Any equipment radiating below safety standards is considered safe which might be misleading

Compliance with safety standards is used as an excuse to stop research funding and to deploy new wireless technologies without any testing

Non-thermal effects exist but are refused to be studied in depth because of the “excuse” of safety standards

Are the physical principles, on which are based current safety standards, sufficiently taking into consideration all pertinent properties of RF-EMF exposures and its interactions with living matter, to assure users safety?

Safety Standards

IARC: RF-EMF – possible carcinogen (category 2B)Of 30 invited experts the vast majority voted for 2B (I was one of them)

Epidemiology studies - Interphone & Hardell studies- no reliable exposure data- risk increase in long-term avid users

- Danish Cohort – no effect but no exposure data at all

- children – only CEFALO- exposures for 2-4 years- has no statistical power to detect small risk

- trend data - Little et al. 2012: slow rise in USA- trend similar to Interphone “prediction”

Human studies - majority are “feelings” studies

Animal studies - no classical toxicology possible- life-time exposures show no effect- co-carcinogen studies show some effects

Mechanism studies - insufficient to support/show mechanism (?)

Leszczynski et al. 2002 Caraglia et al. 2005 Friedman et al. 2007 Buttiglione et al. 2007 Yu et al. 2008 Lee et al. 2008

Mechanism ?: Cell phone radiation affects stress response

Individual cancer risk (statistics from the Finnish Cancer Registry)

Age-adjusted rate of brain cancer for years 2005-2007 Finnish men 11.2 cases/100,000 Finnish women 13.3 cases/100,000

Interphone study - 40% increase (30min/day for 10 years)(current average 24min/day)

Finnish men 15.7/100,000 Finnish women 18.6/100,000

The Hardell study - 170% increase Finnish men - 30.2/100,000 Finnish women - 35.9/100,000

The individual risk remains lowBrain cancer would remain a rare disease

Scale of the potential problem (1/4)

Impact on the society – if predictions materializeNewly diagnosed brain and CNS cancer cases in 2007

Finnish men – 372 Finnish women -561

Interphone - 40% increaseFinnish men - additional 149 cases (total of 521 cases) Finnish women - additional 224 cases (total of 785 cases)Additional burden of 373 brain cancer cases / year

Hardell studies - 170% increase Finnish men - additional 632 cases (total of 1004 cases) Finnish women - additional 953 cases (total of 1515 cases)Additional burden of 1585 brain cancer cases / year

Scale of the potential problem (2/4)

Impact on the society – if predictions materializecosts of treatment – in USA $100.000 – $500.000/patientlost productivity and monetary and non-monetary burden for the families

Finland – population >5,000,000

Interphone - 40% increaseAdditional burden of 373 brain cancer casesCost $37,300,000 - $186,500,000 /year

Hardell studies - 170% increase Additional burden of 1585 brain cancer casesCost $158,500,000 - $792,500,000 /year

Scale of the potential problem (3/4)

Considering that there are over 4 billion of cell phone users, the burden for the society might be sizable (if it materializes)

Scale of the potential problem (4/4)

Invoking the Precautionary Principle (1/2)

“Whether or not to invoke the Precautionary Principle is a decision exercised where scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain and where there are indications that the possible effects on environment, or human, animal or plant health may be potentially dangerous and inconsistent with the chosen level of protection.”

Invoking the Precautionary Principle (2/2)

scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertainIARC classification as possible carcinogen (2B category)

there are indications that the possible effects on human health may be potentially dangerous

epidemiological studies from Interphone group and from Hardell group show increased brain cancer risk in long-term avid users

inconsistent with the chosen level of protectionepidemiological studies showing increased risk in long-term avid users were generated based on the use of regular cell phones meeting current safety standards = current safety standards might be insufficient

Burden of proof

“Measures based on the Precautionary Principle may assign responsibility for producing the scientific evidence necessary for a comprehensive risk evaluation.”

US Senate Hearing in 2009

Quote from my statement:“In the present situation of the scientific uncertainty, the statements assuring that there are no proven health effects and, because of it, the use of mobile phones is safe are premature. In my opinion the current safety standards are not reliable in the context of the lack of studies on human volunteers, children and on effects o long-term exposures in humans.”

Conclusions

IARC classification of the cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen is a sufficient reason for invoking Precautionary Principle

Claims that the current safety standards protect all users are not sufficiently supported by the scientific evidence

Users should be informed about the current scientific uncertainty and advised to limit exposures whenever possible and feasible

Especially children, who will have long time of usage, should be encouraged to limit exposures

Meanwhile, research should continue to find out whether human body reacts to cell phone radiation and in what manner