Subject: FDA Consumer Update - dated 10/20/99 (Kelley)..
Date: Thu, 28 Oct 1999 111401 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Roy L. Beavers"
To: emfguru
--------------------------------------------------
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
Send mail to mime@docserver.cac.washington.edu for more info.
--=====================_8820855==_
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=us-ascii; FORMAT=flowed
Content-ID:
Hi everybody:
......Our champion "web browser" -- Libby Kelley -- has found the
the following..... It is important, of course, for the information
it conveys -- at least SOME of which is good advice, no doubt....
But it is also the usual U.S. Government ("CYA") public announcement
that APPEARS to alert the public to a problem ... while at the same time
paternalistically reassuring the public that things are really "O.K."
-- don't worry about it....
And most of all, as usual, the public is being reassured that the 'good
old' industry/government cabal is "looking into it" (joint research!!!
God help us!!!) ... and you can rest assured that these "good guys" are
going to look out for your interests..... (Do you consider 'the
record' justifies confidence in that??? If you do, let me offer to sell
you one of our "get rich quick" gold mines we've got down here in the
Ozarks.....)
Of course, they're going to lie a little bit to. For example: "However,
the available scientific evidence does not demonstrate 'any' adverse
health effects associated with the use of mobile phones.".....
Now ... Is that a true statement? Certainly not! Not if one is looking
at the "available evidence" **in total** -- ALL that is known regarding
the bioeffects of EMF.... But your good ol' government guys become a bit
MYOPIC when it comes to the issuance of such statements.
They manage to look just at the 'narrow picture' -- of research that has
been done SPECIFICALLY on cell phones -- rather than a total look at all
the "other" EMF bioeffects research..... Hell ... there has been precious
little done SPECIFICALLY on cell phones!!! That makes it easy to be
MYOPIC....
Oh yes. Later on in their notice they disclose what some of the
cell phone scientific evidence is -- and they contradict this claim of
innocence.....??
But ... as it is often said ... CLOSE ENOUGH FOR GOVERNMENT WORK!!.....
Cheerio..... (BTW -- you know what "CYA" is, don't you??)
Roy Beavers (EMFguru)
rbeavers@llion.org
.....It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness.....
NEW!!! Website
...................People are more important than profits.................
..........DO YOU KNOW OF OTHERS WHO SHOULD BE ON THIS LIST??????..........
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 20:02:12 -0700
From: Libby Kelley
To: rbeavers@llion.org
Subject: FDA Consumer Update - dated 10/20/99
October 20, 1999
Consumer Update on Mobile Phones
FDA has been receiving inquiries about the safety of mobile phones,
including cellular phones and PCS phones. The following
summarizes what is known--and what remains unknown--about whether these
products can pose a hazard to health, and what can
be done to minimize any potential risk. This information may be used to
respond to questions.
Why the concern?
Mobile phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy (i.e.,
radiofrequency radiation) in the microwave range while being used. They
also emit very low levels of radiofrequency energy (RF), considered
non-significant, when in the stand-by mode. It is well known that
high levels of RF can produce biological damage through heating effects
(this is how your microwave oven is able to cook food).
However, it is not known whether, to what extent, or through what
mechanism, lower levels of RF might cause adverse health effects
as well. Although some research has been done to address these questions,
no clear picture of the biological effects of this type of
radiation has emerged to date. Thus, the available science does not allow
us to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe, or
that they are unsafe. However, the available scientific evidence does not
demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the
use of mobile phones.
What kinds of phones are in question?
Questions have been raised about hand-held mobile phones, the kind that
have a built-in antenna that is positioned close to the
user's head during normal telephone conversation. These types of mobile
phones are of concern because of the short distance
between the phone's antenna--the primary source of the RF--and the person's
head. The exposure to RF from mobile phones in
which the antenna is located at greater distances from the user (on the
outside of a car, for example) is drastically lower than that
from hand-held phones, because a person's RF exposure decreases rapidly
with distance from the source. The safety of so-called
"cordless phones," which have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring
in a house and which operate at far lower power levels
and frequencies, has not been questioned.
How much evidence is there that hand-held mobile phones might be harmful?
Briefly, there is not enough evidence to know for sure, either way;
however, research efforts are on-going.
The existing scientific evidence is conflicting and many of the studies
that have been done to date have suffered from flaws in their
research methods. Animal experiments investigating the effects of RF
exposures characteristic of mobile phones have yielded
conflicting results. A few animal studies, however, have suggested that low
levels of RF could accelerate the development of cancer
in laboratory animals. In one study, mice genetically altered to be
predisposed to developing one type of cancer developed more than
twice as many such cancers when they were exposed to RF energy compared to
controls. There is much uncertainty among
scientists about whether results obtained from animal studies apply to the
use of mobile phones. First, it is uncertain how to apply
the results obtained in rats and mice to humans. Second, many of the
studies that showed increased tumor development used
animals that had already been treated with cancer-causing chemicals, and
other studies exposed the animals to the RF virtually
continuously--up to 22 hours per day.
For the past five years in the United States, the mobile phone industry has
supported research into the safety of mobile phones. This
research has resulted in two findings in particular that merit additional
study:
1.In a hospital-based, case-control study, researchers looked for an
association between mobile phone use and either glioma (a
type of brain cancer) or acoustic neuroma (a benign tumor of the
nerve sheath). No statistically significant association was
found between mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma. There was also
no association between mobile phone use and
gliomas when all types of types of gliomas were considered together.
It should be noted that the average length of mobile
phone exposure in this study was less than three years.
When 20 types of glioma were considered separately, however, an
association was found between mobile phone use and one
rare type of glioma, neuroepithelliomatous tumors. It is possible
with multiple comparisons of the same sample that this
association occurred by chance. Moreover, the risk did not increase
with how often the mobile phone was used, or the length
of the calls. In fact, the risk actually decreased with cumulative
hours of mobile phone use. Most cancer causing agents
increase risk with increased exposure. An ongoing study of brain
cancers by the National Cancer Institute is expected to bear
on the accuracy and repeatability of these results.1
2.Researchers conducted a large battery of laboratory tests to assess
the effects of exposure to mobile phone RF on genetic
material. These included tests for several kinds of abnormalities,
including mutations, chromosomal aberrations, DNA strand
breaks, and structural changes in the genetic material of blood cells
called lymphocytes. None of the tests showed any effect
of the RF except for the micronucleus assay, which detects structural
effects on the genetic material. The cells in this assay
showed changes after exposure to simulated cell phone radiation, but
only after 24 hours of exposure. It is possible that
exposing the test cells to radiation for this long resulted in
heating. Since this assay is known to be sensitive to heating, heat
alone could have caused the abnormalities to occur. The data already
in the literature on the response of the micronucleus
assay to RF are conflicting. Thus, follow-up research is necessary.2
FDA is currently working with government, industry, and academic groups to
ensure the proper follow-up to these industry-funded
research findings. Collaboration with the Cellular Telecommunications
Industry Association (CTIA) in particular is expected to lead to
FDA providing research recommendations and scientific oversight of new
CTIA-funded research based on such recommendations.
Two other studies of interest have been reported recently in the literature:
1.Two groups of 18 people were exposed to simulated mobile phone
signals under laboratory conditions while they performed
cognitive function tests. There were no changes in the subjects'
ability to recall words, numbers, or pictures, or in their spatial
memory, but they were able to make choices more quickly in one visual
test when they were exposed to simulated mobile
phone signals. This was the only change noted among more than 20
variables compared.3
2.In a study of 209 brain tumor cases and 425 matched controls, there
was no increased risk of brain tumors associated with
mobile phone use. When tumors did exist in certain locations,
however, they were more likely to be on the side of the head
where the mobile phone was used. Because this occurred in only a
small number of cases, the increased likelihood was too
small to be statistically significant.4
In summary, we do not have enough information at this point to assure the
public that there are, or are not, any low incident health
problems associated with use of mobile phones. FDA continues to work with
all parties, including other federal agencies and
industry, to assure that research is undertaken to provide the necessary
answers to the outstanding questions about the safety of
mobile phones.
What is known about cases of human cancer that have been reported in users
of hand-held mobile phones?
Some people who have used mobile phones have been diagnosed with brain
cancer. But it is important to understand that this type
of cancer also occurs among people who have not used mobile phones. In
fact, brain cancer occurs in the U.S. population at a rate
of about 6 new cases per 100,000 people each year. At that rate, assuming
80 million users of mobile phones (a number increasing
at a rate of about 1 million per month), about 4800 cases of brain cancer
would be expected each year among those 80 million
people, whether or not they used their phones. Thus it is not possible to
tell whether any individual's cancer arose because of the
phone, or whether it would have happened anyway. A key question is whether
the risk of getting a particular form of cancer is greater
among people who use mobile phones than among the rest of the population.
One way to answer that question is to compare the
usage of mobile phones among people with brain cancer with the use of
mobile phones among appropriately matched people without
brain cancer. This is called a case-control study. The current case-control
study of brain cancers by the National Cancer Institute,
as well as the follow-up research to be sponsored by industry, will begin
to generate this type of information.
What is FDA's role concerning the safety of mobile phones?
Under the law, FDA does not review the safety of radiation-emitting
consumer products such as mobile phones before marketing, as
it does with new drugs or medical devices. However, the agency has
authority to take action if mobile phones are shown to emit
radiation at a level that is hazardous to the user. In such a case, FDA
could require the manufacturers of mobile phones to notify
users of the health hazard and to repair, replace or recall the phones so
that the hazard no longer exists.
Although the existing scientific data do not justify FDA regulatory actions
at this time, FDA has urged the mobile phone industry to
take a number of steps to assure public safety. The agency has recommended
that the industry:
support needed research into possible biological effects of RF of the
type emitted by mobile phones;
design mobile phones in a way that minimizes any RF exposure to the
user that is not necessary for device function ; and
cooperate in providing mobile phone users with the best possible
information on what is known about possible effects of
mobile phone use on human health.
At the same time, FDA belongs to an interagency working group of the
federal agencies that have responsibility for different aspects
of mobile phone safety to ensure a coordinated effort at the federal level.
These agencies are:
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Communications Commission
Occupational Health and Safety Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
The National Institutes of Health also participates in this group.
In the absence of conclusive information about any possible risk, what can
concerned individuals do?
If there is a risk from these products--and at this point we do not know
that there is--it is probably very small. But if people are
concerned about avoiding even potential risks, there are simple steps they
can take to do so. For example, time is a key factor in
how much exposure a person receives. Those persons who spend long periods
of time on their hand-held mobile phones could
consider holding lengthy conversations on conventional phones and reserving
the hand-held models for shorter conversations or for
situations when other types of phones are not available.
People who must conduct extended conversations in their cars every day
could switch to a type of mobile phone that places more
distance between their bodies and the source of the RF, since the exposure
level drops off dramatically with distance. For example,
they could switch to
a mobile phone in which the antenna is located outside the vehicle,
a hand-held phone with a built-in antenna connected to a different
antenna mounted on the outside of the car or built into a
separate package, or
a headset with a remote antenna to a mobile phone carried at the waist.
Again, the scientific data do not demonstrate that mobile phones are
harmful. But if people are concerned about the radiofrequency
energy from these products, taking the simple precautions outlined above
can reduce any possible risk.
Where can I find additional information?
For additional information, see the following websites:
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF Safety Program (select
"Information on Human Exposure to RF Fields from
Cellular and PCS Radio Transmitters"): http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety
World Health Organization (WHO) International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (select Qs & As):
http://www.who.int/emf
United Kingdom, National Radiological Protection Board:
http://www.nrpb.org.uk
1. Muscat et al. Epidemiological Study of Cellular Telephone Use and
Malignant Brain Tumors. In: State of the Science
Symposium;1999 June 20; Long Beach, California.
2. Tice et al. Tests of mobile phone signals for activity in genotoxicity
and other laboratory assays. In: Annual Meeting of the
Environmental Mutagen Society; March 29, 1999, Washington, D.C.; and
personal communication, unpublished results.
3. Preece, AW, Iwi, G, Davies-Smith, A, Wesnes, K, Butler, S, Lim, E, and
Varey, A. Effect of a 915-MHz simulated mobile phone
signal on cognitive function in man. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., April 8, 1999.
4. Hardell, L, Nasman, A, Pahlson, A, Hallquist, A and Mild, KH. Use of
cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumors: a
case-control study. Int. J. Oncol., 15: 113-116, 1999.
Updated October 20, 1999
> http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ocd/mobilphone.html.
--=====================_8820855==_--
Archive provided courtesy of WaveGuide, http://www.wave-guide.org
Reprinted with permission of Roy Beavers, http://www.emfguru.com