Radio Frequency Radiation and Policy on Public Safety

Dear Ms Kirkup (Parliamentary Bureau, Toronto Sun),

In your recent article in the Toronto Sun, July 6, 2011 ‘Study downplaying cellphone risks by manufacturers’, http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/06/study-downplaying-cellphone-risks-funded-by-manufacturers you reported that “The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection - composed of scientists from Britain, the United States and Sweden - said evidence is mounting against the hypothesis cell phones may cause cancer despite the findings of IARC.” You further correctly reported that a conflict of interest was disclosed in that the funding to these scientists is courtesy of the telecommunications industry. Not only was there funding from telecommunications providers such as ‘Telia Sonera’, ‘Ericsson AB’, and ‘Telenor’, but the writers of this report also own shares in telecom companies such as ‘Cable & Wireless Worldwide’, ‘Cable & Wireless Communications’ and ‘BT Group’ (a global telecommunications services company).

The conflict of interest of Anthony Swerdlow and Maria Feychting et. al. is notated in the paper ‘Mobile Phones, Brain Tumours and the Interphone Study: Where Are We Now?’ It is copied from the document with the writers’ names/institutions listed first and Conflict of Interest Statement italicized in red below: http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1103693

“Anthony J. Swerdlow 1, Maria Feychting 2, Adele C Green 3, Leeka Kheifets 4, David A Savitz 5 (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection Standing Committee on Epidemiology) 1 Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, UK; 2 Karolinska Institutet, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Stockholm, Sweden; 3 Cancer and Population Studies Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia & School of Translational Medicine, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; 4 Department of Epidemiology, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles,USA; 5 Departments of Community Health and Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Brown University, Providence, USA. Correspondence to: Anthony Swerdlow, Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, 15 Cotswold Road, Sutton, Surrey SM2 5NG, UK. (Telephone: +442087224012; fax: +44 2087224019; email: anthony.swerdlow@icr.ac.uk) ….

Conflict of Interest Statement
Funding for research undertaken by MF [=Maria Feychting] and AJS [=Anthony J Swerdlow] has been provided by a number of sources, including the European Fifth Framework Program; the International Union against Cancer, which receives funds from the Mobile Manufacturers' Forum and the GSM Association; the Mobile Telecommunications Health and Research Programme; the Swedish Research Council; AFA Insurance; and VINNOVA (The Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems). VINNOVA received funds from Telia Sonera, Ericsson AB, and Telenor. All funds from commercial sources were via firewalls. The authors certify that their freedom to design, conduct, interpret, and publish research was not compromised by any controlling sponsor. AJS [=Anthony J Swerdlow] holds shares in the telecoms companies Cable & Wireless Worldwide and Cable and Wireless Communications. AJS' wife holds shares in the BT Group, a global telecommunications services company. MF [Maria Feychting], ACG, [Adele C Green] and AJS [Swerdlow] are members of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, an independent body setting guidelines for non-ionizing radiation protection. MF [=Maria Feychting]and AJS [=Anthony J Swerdlow] serve as advisors to a number of public advisory and research steering groups concerning thepotential health effects of exposure to non-ionizing radiation.”

I have a friend who slept with her cell phone (on vibrate) under her pillow for years when she was an on-call nurse so that incoming messages would not waken her husband at night. Unfortunately, she developed a brain tumour, which fortunately was operable. Tragically, her quality of life is forever changed, but she is hopeful that she will survive to see her son graduate from university.

Perhaps, it is the Insurance Industry and the Workman's Compensation Board then that should fundtheir own risk assessments on radio frequency radiation, because it will be them whoin the end will pay out compensation for injury, disease, inability to continue working and even death. Or does the telecommunications industry have enough money to accept the liability for placing humanity at risk by continuing to refuse to accept the fact that their product has never, ever been proven safe? The recent findings of the WHO / IARC May 31, 2011 that radio frequency radiation as a 2B carcinogen, on the other handwere based on 100’s of scientific articles and the public can have confidence in that.

The public has a right to know that Anthony Swerdlow and Maria Feychting et. al. have vested interests in the telecom industry and that they benefit monetarilywith funding for their research from them as well. Their scientific ‘opinion’ can only have been unduly influenced by this fact and thereforetheir 'science'can not possiblyhave anycredibility for the development of government policy forpublic safety when it comesqualifying the risk assessment of radio frequency radiation. And further, the most damning and most reprehensible omission of Swerdlow and Feychting is in the conclusion of theirabstractas they have left our vulnerable, developing 'children' completely out of the equation: “Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumours in adults.”

As a consequence ofthe Swerdlow/Feychtingreport attempting to disqualify the WHO / IARC classification of radio frequency radiation as a 2B carcinogen, School Boards world-wide will continue to irradiate children/teachers in their classrooms with WiFi and parents of young children will continue to believe that cell phones are safe. The least of our worries will be 'adult brain cancer'. The global community will be facing the possible extinction of the human species as the reproductive capabilities of little girls and little boys are bombarded with radiation in their classrooms for seven hours a day from Junior Kindergarten (age 3) to their University/College graduation (age 23). Or will we be weeping in the face of an unprecedented epidemic of 'juvenile brain cancer' as children/teenscontinue tocuddle upwith their cell phones under their pillows lulled to sleep with music downloadsor so that they can stay connected to their girl/boy friends 24/7, which is now so much a part of their young culture?

Cell phones must be labelled appropriately with a statement of risk just like cigarettes and WiFi must be removed from schools in favour of safe hard-wired internet connections ...either that or lawyers will be having a heyday asking, “Class action suite anyone?”

Our children are our future.

Janice