CELL PHONES AND CELL TOWERS Health Risk and Precautionary Principle Dariusz Leszczynski, PhD, DSc Adjunct Professor, University of Helsinki Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers in Radiation and Health (specialty of the Frontiers in Public Health, Lausanne, Switzerland)

Member of the Advisory Board, Cellraid, Ltd, Oulu, Finland [email protected] Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Who I am... few examples of my experience • • • •

• • • • •

Adjunct Professor at the University of Helsinki, Finland Chief Editor of ’Radiation and Health’; specialty of Frontiers in Public Health Two doctorates in biochemistry and in cell biology 22 years (1992-2013) at Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority • 2003-2007 as Head of Radiation Biology laboratory • 2000-2013 as Research Professor Assistant Professor at Harvard Medical School 1997-1999 Guangbiao Professor at Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China 2006-2009 Visiting Professor at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia 2012/2013 Testified in US Senate hearing on cell phones and health, in 2009 Expert in IARC 2011 classification of carcinogenicity of cell phone radiation Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Whenever discussing safety of radiation emitted by the wireless communication devices we need to remember this WHO definition of health

WHO defintion of health “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity”

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

IARC evaluation 2011 • 30 invited experts divided into four sub-groups • • • •

Dosimetry Epidemiology Animal studies Mechanistic laboratory in vitro studies

• Decissions done by consensus or by simple majority • The vast majority of experts voted for possible carcinogen classification

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

IARC 2011 and after IARC: Epidemiology • European Interphone studies • Swedish Hardell group studies • French CERENAT study • No reliable exposure data • Risk increase in long-term (over 10 years) avid users (30min/day) • It means that now there are three replications of the same epidemiological type of study, the case-control study, that all suggest cell phone radiation might increase a risk of brain cancer. Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

IARC 2011: Human studies • The vast majority are “feelings” studies • • • • • •

Subjects asked how they feel Subject asked do they feel when radiation is on/off EHS must exist – question is only of radiation cut-off level Otherwise RF would be the only factor not causing individual sensitivity in people Problem of EHS – studied by psychologists not physiologists – wrong methods WHO definition of health – how to consider it? IARC classification justifies reasoning for “mental and social well-being”

• Lack of studies examining biochemical responses of human tissues • Single skin proteomics study • Two studies examined glucose metabolism in the brain • That is all! Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

IARC 2011: Animal studies • No classical toxicology possible • By classical toxicology RF would be judged as harmful to humans • Not possible to overdose cell phone radiation because of heating effect • Life-time exposures to radiation doses similar to those emitted by cell phones show no effect – result useless for human health risk estimation

• Co-carcinogen studies show some effects – cell phone radiation might potentiate effects of carcinogenic chemicals or radiation

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

*…but… what nobody is speaking about! Risk evaluation of radiation emitted by the base stations: scientific studies where exposure levels are similar to levels emitted by cell phones can be considered as toxicology studies examining effects of radiation emitted by base stations

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Scale of the potential problem Even if individual risk will be small, considering that there are over 6 billion of cell phone users, the burden for the society might be sizable in monetary and human suffering terms Radiation exposures from cell phones and from smart phones are not comparable – smart phone radiation exposures are much higher because of data traffic

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Un-reliability of safety standards The IARC classification, of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogen, invalidates the ICNIRP and WHO claims that the current safety standards protect all users. In three independent epidemiological case-control studies, two of which were evaluated by IARC, adult participants used regular, off-the-shelf, cell phones. These cell phones were built to fulfil all ICNIRP safety standards. However, avid use of such “safe” cell phones for period of over 10 years led to increased risk of brain cancer. This means that the current safety standards do not protect sufficiently users of cell phones and casts doubt whether safety standards for cell towers are reliable. Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Invoking the Precautionary Principle

“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.” Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Invoking the Precautionary Principle • Scientific information is insufficient, inconclusive, or uncertain • IARC 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 protection • epidemiological 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 are be insufficient to protect users Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

India: problem of location of cell towers

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

by Cellraid, Ltd, in Finland cellraid.com

• Cell phone app - runs on any commercial Android phone • Measures RF emission exposure from cell phone, cell tower and wi-fi • Accurate algorithm to estimate total RF emission

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Cell tower radiation exposure in India before

now

[drawings no to scale]

Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

Cell phone radiation exposure before

now

lesser exposure of the users Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014

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 supported by the scientific evidence • Current safety standards should be urgently revised to better reflect the available science • Users should be informed about the current scientific uncertainty and advised to limit exposures whenever possible and feasible and strongly discouraged from keeping cell phones close to body (in pockets) • Children's use of smart phones should be limited Dariusz Leszczynski in Mumbai, September 18, 2014