[back] Cell phone tower, tetra, mobile phone critics
Dr. Neil Cherry
[back] Cell phone tower,
tetra, mobile phone critics
Website http://www.neilcherry.com/
Articles
[2000] Safe exposure levels
by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
(In
Word format)
Quotes
Over forty cell phone radiation studies are cited here. They show that cell
phone radiation mimics the biological and epidemiological studies for EMR over the past 4 decades. This includes DNA
strand breakage, chromosome aberrations, increased oncogene activity in cells,
reduced melatonin, altered brain activity, altered blood pressure and increased
brain cancer. [8
June 2000] Health effects associated with mobile base
stations in communities: the need for health studies :
Dr. Neil Cherry
For ICNIRP to concentrate on and rely on a single biological
mechanism, Tissue Heating, is inappropriate and wrong. Large portions of
official documents are devoted to extensive discourses on SARs and determination
of the thermal threshold. This whole methodology is flawed. Health effects
assessments start with epidemiological evidence and the existence of a plausible
biological mechanism is irrelevant.
WHO, ICNIRP and their international
and national counterparts have developed a highly sophisticated system of
approaches to dismiss all epidemiological evidence and animal and cellular
evidence which conflicts with their RF-Thermal view of the world. As the
epidemiological and laboratory evidence has grown stronger and stronger, the
dismissive methodology has lost all sophistication and, as demonstrated by
ICNIRP (1998), it is blatantly selective, reductionist, biased and
scientifically dishonest.
It is scientifically dishonest
because it cites papers that clearly report significant increases in cancer as
showing no evidence of cancer. It deliberately chooses to accept conclusions
that claim no association between radar and health effects when the data in the
report or paper proves that this is incorrect. ICNIRP also includes studies in
its assessment that are incapable of showing effects, as though they provide
evidence that there are no effects........I strongly
contend that the approach and conclusions of ICNIRP and the WHO position is
methodologically and factually scientifically flawed. They place public health
severely and demonstrably at risk.
[June 2000] Health effects associated with mobile base
stations in communities: the need for health studies :
Dr. Neil Cherry
Two Australian studies were carried out to assure the public that both cell phones and cell sites were safe. Both of these studies, Hocking et al. (1996) and Repacholi et al. (1997), showed that leukaemia/lymphoma was more than doubled for people and mice.[June 2000] Health effects associated with mobile base stations in communities: the need for health studies : Dr. Neil Cherry
Grayson (1996) is far from a no effects" study. Thus far consistently the ICNIRP claims are scientifically wrong and misleading. This study does show a small but statistically significant increase in brain tumour from RF/MW exposure......WHO and ICNIRP base non-ionizing radiation protection standards on a single biological mechanism, Tissue Heating. They systematically reject or ignore all epidemiological and animal evidence of non-thermal effects, for which there is a large body.......The ICNIRP assessment of biological mechanisms is reviewed and found to be selective, limited and flawed. Their assessment of RF/MW effects on reproductive outcomes is shown to be limited, misleading and flawed. The cancer assessment is shown to be selective, misleading, inappropriate and flawed. An incorrect epidemiological approach is consistently applied.......This is a woefully inadequate and thoroughly unprofessional treatment of this large and significant epidemiological study. The ICNIRP response represents a total misunderstanding or misrepresentation of epidemiology and the results of this study. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000 (In Word format)
The non-thermal effects identified by the Soviet researchers were often referred to as the "Radiofrequency Sickness Syndrome" or the "Microwave Syndrome". It has symptoms of functional changes in nervous and cardiovascular systems, such as headaches, fatigue, irritability, sleep disturbance, weakness, decreased libido, chest pains and bradychardia. Hypotonia (muscle weakness) and related symptoms had been reported in the USSR (Gordon, 1966), France (Deroche, 1971) and Israel (Moscovici et al., 1974). Western scientists rejected these symptoms as "subjective". A set of them have now been identified with cell phone usage, including a significant dose-response relationship, Mild et al. (1998). Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000 (In Word format)
The general acceptance or complacency about the RF-thermal view was
scientifically challenged time and time again throughout this period. For
example, Dr Adey gave the introductory paper to this 1974 conference, Adey
(1975), on the effects of EMR on the nervous system. In this paper he states:
"Even a recent review body of the World Health Organization decided after
discussion to dismiss from its concerns possible biological effects that might
occur in the absence of significant heating. It has become clear, however, that
interactions with the mammalian central nervous system can be reliably produced
by oscillating electric and electromagnetic fields without significant heating
of tissues."
It is a very strong statement to say that interactions can be reliably
produced in the CNS without the heating of tissues. Dr Adey refers to the work
of König and Wever in Germany and to work from his own laboratory, on
behavioural effects, such as changed reaction times and altered circadian
rhythms in ELF exposures. These effects were associated with induced electric
field gradients in monkey phantoms in the range 0.1 to 0.01(V/cm. The effects
were also linked to changes in EEG and significant effluxes of calcium ions and
GABA, Kaczmarek and Adey (1973). During the 1970's was as shown that calcium ion
efflux occurred at non-thermal exposure levels and was primarily related to
modulation frequency, i.e. a non-thermal, possible resonant, biological
mechanism.
Safe exposure levels
by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
In 1990 an internal review team of the U.S. E.P.A. recommended that ELF be classified as a probable human carcinogen and RF/MW as a possible human carcinogen. Under pressure from the Bush White House, EPA administrators changed the conclusions of the review and the classification never became official EPA policy, Sibbison (1990). The rationale was based on the preferred public policy stance "We don't want to scare the public". Public health protection was not considered as important..........Of all the major western authorities who are responsible for setting RF/MW exposure standards, the only body which is departed from solely considering thermal effects, was an internal review team of the U.S. E.P.A.. They also considered epidemiologic and animal evidence at non-thermal levels that did involve increases in cancer. However, they were not allowed to retain their recommended carcinogenic classification because EPA administrators bowed to political pressure. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
Alternatively, taking the more traditional scientific and legal approach, there are three studies, from independent laboratories, which show significant increases in cancer in rodents at non-thermal levels of exposure to RF/MW radiation. Hence there is animal evidence to support the epidemiological evidence that RF/MW exposed populations develop significantly higher rates of cancer incidence and mortality. Both the animal evidence and the human evidence covers a wide range of RF/MW exposure conditions. Across the same frequency range multiple independent laboratories have observed significant DNA-strand breakage and enhanced chromosome aberrations. Hence there is strong evidence that RF/MW is genotoxic, mutagenic, carcinogenic and teratogenic in animals and people at non-thermal levels of RF/MW exposure. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
ICNIRP's statement about Beall et al. (1996) and Grayson (1996) is demonstrably scientifically wrong and misleading. It reveals a strong predetermination to dismiss evidence of effects. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
Thus it is grossly wrong for the report of Royal Society of NZ to claim that "no effects have been reported from occupational exposure" and "nor are there any indications of adverse health effects on humans, other than from spark discharges and shock from direct contact". This is so grossly misleading and dishonest, that it puts this report's credibility, and that of the Royal Society of New Zealand, seriously at risk. In coming to its conclusions the Royal Society of NZ relied heavily on the Director of the National Radiation Laboratory, Dr Andrew McEwan. Scientists and the public expect much more scientific accuracy and integrity from Government employees who advise the Minister of Health, and of the Royal Society. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
This critique will show that some key non-thermal biological mechanisms are well established by replication in many independent laboratories. These established biological mechanisms are totally supportive of and consistent with a large body of epidemiological evidence, which includes many statistically significant associations and dose-response relationships. In doing so this critique will show that the ICNIRP assessment takes a predetermined dismissive approach that is highly selective and unscientific. It even involves deliberate and repeated misquoting and misrepresentation of study results. It becomes clear that the thermally based guideline is being defended at all costs, even at the cost of putting public health severely at risk all around the world. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
ICNIRP is playing its own game and setting its own rules. It is the game that is played by national authorities which, as a team, they feel very comfortable with it. The name of the team is "The Consensus of Science". However, it involves quite a small and very select team that includes national experts who come from national authorities who subscribe to the rules of the ICNIRP game. In the ICNIRP game the first rule is that there is only a tissue heating effect from RF/MW exposure. You must agree with this rule to play the ICNIRP game. As a consequence of this rule, in the ICNIRP game, all other biological effects are not real and any epidemiological study that shows an effect with non-thermal exposure, must be faulty and will be rejected. In other words, if you break this rule you are out of the game. In this game it is fine to change the rules about acceptable significant, what is evidence, and criteria for how a biological effect is established. In this game a study does not provide evidence until it has been exactly replicated. You set up 13 criteria which must be achieved for an experiment to be reliable, for example Meltz (1995). If even one criteria is breached then you can reject the findings. Similarly the ICNIRP team uses the Bradford-Hill Criteria to criticize and reject all epidemiological studies. One criticism, valid or not, is sufficient to reject a whole study. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
Satre, Cook and Graham (1998) observed significantly reduced heart rate variability (HRV) in volunteers sleeping in 60Hz fields. Extrinsic EMR signals interfere with hearts and cause heart disease and death. Bortkiewicz et al. (1995, 1996, 1997) and Szmigielski et al. (1998) found that RF exposure altered heart rate variability and blood pressure. Braune et al. (1998) showed that cell phone significantly increased blood pressure. Savitz et al. (1999) found a highly significant dose response relationship for mortality from Arrhythmia related heart disease and heart attack (Acute Myocardial Infarction) for exposed electrical occupations and for individual occupations of electrician, lineman and power plant operator.
This is a powerful set of epidemiological evidence showing that EMR across the spectrum increases the incidence and mortality from arrhythmia related heart disease and from heart attack.
One of the primary reasons many skeptics about EMR health effects, such as ICNIRP, use to dismiss studies that show statistically significant effects and even dose-response relationships, is their claim of the lack of a plausible biological mechanism. When a study reveals a significant biological effect at nonthermal levels then groups such as the ICNIRP state that it must be independently replicated before it can be accepted as an established biological mechanism. Based on this criteria calcium ion efflux/influx, GABA fluxes, melatonin reduction, DNA damage, chromosome aberrations and altered proto oncogenes are established biological mechanisms. All have been reported from two or more independent laboratories, most in 4 or more laboratories. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
ICNIRP ignores several male studies showing significant reduction in sexual function. The ICNIRP reproductive assessment also fails to take into account 11 relevant studies that reconfirm the conclusions of Kallen et al., Larsen et al. and Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart. This shows how limited and therefore unprofessional the ICNIRP assessment is. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
ICNIRP (1998) quotes Cohen et al. (1977) which found no association between radar exposure and Down's syndrome in their off-spring. They failed to mention a previous paper from the same group, Sigler et al, (1965), which did find a significant risk from parental radar exposure. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
ICNIRP (1998) fails to refer to the significant research involving animal experiments on reproductive effects when exposed to RF/MW. Results range from testicular degeneration, resorption of the fetus and altered body weight at high but non-thermal levels of exposure to total infertility in multigenerational studies of mice exposed to 0.168 µW/cm² and 1.053 µW/cm², Magras and Xenos (1997). There are many animal studies showing that RF/MW is teratogenic, that is, it causes severe reproductive problems. Berman et al. (1982) introduce their paper by stating:
It has been repeatedly shown that microwaves have teratogenic potential. Rats and mice have been used almost exclusively in these studies."
The Australian ABC television investigative programme, Four Corners, claimed in a documentary on electromagnetic health effects, that in a factory which used radiofrequency heaters for sealing plastics, that of 17 women who worked at sealing machines, 14 had miscarried.
The ICNIRP (1998) assessment of reproductive effects from RF/MW exposure is severely flawed. Animal studies show that chromosome aberrations and single and double strand DNA breakage occurs with EMR exposure, mice and rats have pregnancy, birth and fertility problems associated with EMR exposure which are also found in exposed human populations. There is consistency within human studies and between human studies and animal studies. Many human studies show statistically significant adverse reproductive outcomes. Two human studies, Lindbohm et al. (1992) and Ouellet-Hellstrom and Stewart (1993), gave a statistically significant dose response relationship. This study allows an exposure assessment to be carried out, along with the multigeneration mice study, Magras and Xenos (1997). Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
This evidence supports a causal relationship between EMR exposure and serious adverse reproductive outcomes such as miscarriage, prematurely, still birth, low birth weight, SIDS and congenital malformations. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
ICNIRP consistently uses very simple statements to dismiss any adverse effects. Every time a careful consideration of principles, methods, application of epidemiological approaches and consideration of the actual data and exposure regimes, produces a significantly different conclusion. And when sets of studies are considered together, very strong conclusions are drawn. These studies are no exception. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
The three challenges in this report of the ICNIRP assessment, of using the wrong methodology and of using Constructive Dismissal to defend their flawed methodology, and neglecting a large body of epidemiological research, have been proven. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
15.2 Hocking, Gordon, Grain and Hatfield (1996): Cancer incidence and mortality and proximity to TV towers.".....The strongest relationship is for childhood lymphatic leukaemia death, RR=2.74 (95%CI: 1.42-5.27). The study found that 59 children had died from having leukaemia when the expected number was 25.43, an excess of 33.6 deaths. For childhood lymphatic leukaemia 39 children died when 14.2 were expected, an excess of nearly 25 children, Table 22. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
ICNIRP's thermally based approach has been proven many times to be wrong in terms of scientific evidence and public health standard methodology. There is sufficient epidemiological evidence to establish a cause and effect relationship between chronic low level EMR exposure and many adverse health effects, including cardiac, neurological, reproductive and cancer effects. The dose response relationships indicate a cancer and reproductive problem threshold near zero. Safe exposure levels by Dr. Neil Cherry - Lincoln University - 25/4/2000
The data in Dolk et al. is internally consistent, shows
elevated childhood leukaemia and brain tumor, and a set of dose-response
relationships which are likely to be highly significant, if related to realistic
radial RF patterns, for cancer at a wide range of body sites including All
Cancer, Leukaemia, Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, Brain Cancer, Bladder Cancer,
Prostate Cancer, Skin Melanoma, Male and Female Breast Cancer and Colorectal
Cancer. This is also consistent with Robinette et al. (1980), Szmigielski (1996)
and Milham (1985, 1988). June 2000] Health effects associated with mobile base
stations in communities: the need for health studies :
Dr. Neil Cherry