[Air-L] [ciresearchers] regarding mobile devices and cancer: M4D and IARC

Mon Dec 5 04:46:06 PST 2011

Hi All

I’d also welcome reading further about the debate surrounding mobile devices and effects of radio emissions.  As some of you know my PhD territory was an exploration of grassroots community networking groups, including those using wireless technologies, so I have both an academic and very personal interest, having spent a lot of time clambering around roofs mounting equipment and working with it! [1]. 

I apologise if I gave the impression of bias by posting up the Lancet report:  Robert flagged up the IARC was carrying out some research and Gene forwarded to ci-researchers, I found the outcome of the study and thought it might be of interest to post the reference, quickly summarise and give you the link so you  would all to be able to read further yourself.

I’d also be interested in reading further around the topic, please post up further links folks. I’m very interested to hear about where people have appropriated communications infrastructures for their own usage and their perceptions of the risks versus the benefits. 

Regards to you all

Mark

[1] PhD link: http://oro.open.ac.uk/29696/
"An investigation into grassroots initiated networked communities as a means of addressing the digital divide" 

From: Don Cameron [mailto:dg_cameron at bigpond.com] 
Sent: 04 December 2011 23:27
To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net; 'Robert Rattle'; 'gene loeb'; 'M.B.Gaved'
Cc: air-l at aoir.org
Subject: RE: [ciresearchers] Re: [Air-L] regarding mobile devices and cancer: M4D and IARC

I was also struck by what seems a rather draconian term of reference for ‘evidence’ in this study.

CQU (.au) faces a similar underlying dilemma (to studies questioning the promoted “safety” of mobile phone radiation) through the recent offering of Bachelor of Science (Chiropractic) curriculum. Some apparent old-school scholars cite a lack of evidence-based research to support such curriculum arguing Chiropractics is not evidence based; others argue the evidence is sound, well documented and practiced. Difference of opinion seems to lack consideration of benefit to humanity rather focusing only on the definition of evidence itself.

Perhaps lost in this somewhat academic war of interpretation is a little old fashioned common sense?

When considering the well-being of loved ones in potential conflict with the mission of corporate telecommunications interests might it not be prudent to err on the side of caution?  Should we not be seeking evidence to support a stance of safety rather than risk?

The question IMO should not be one of “is mobile radiation safe”; it should be “what evidence exists to support argument that mobile radiation is not as dangerous as we know it to be?“

Don

From: ciresearchers-owner at vancouvercommunity.net [mailto:ciresearchers-owner at vancouvercommunity.net] On Behalf Of Robert Rattle
Sent: Monday, 5 December 2011 6:26 AM
To: 'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'; 'gene loeb'; M.B.Gaved
Cc: 'air-l at aoir.org'
Subject: [ciresearchers] Re: [Air-L] regarding mobile devices and cancer: M4D and IARC

Thanks for this reference Mark.

I was rather struck by the quote you provided as it could be interpreted to be conflicting with the official stated classification in Group 2B (Possibly carcinogenic to humans) of radiofrequency EMR by the IARC.

Upon reading the article, however, and re-reading the quote you provided, it is clear that both reinforce the categorisation in Group 2B by the IARC.

For instance, the INTERPHONE and Swedish studies referred to in the Lancet article states that "the Working Group concluded that the findings [of these studies] could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone, and that a causal interpretation between mobile phone RF-EMF exposure and glioma is possible."

Several additional conclusions reached as discussed in the Lancet article also makes clear the basis for, and strengthening further the case for including radiofrequency EMR in Group 2B.  As the article concludes: "the Working Group classified RF EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). This evaluation was supported by a large majority of Working Group members."

So, what are the moral, legal, ethical and health (and environmental) implications, especially regarding those least able to cope with or manage the impacts and costs?  Anyone investigating these issues?

--- On Mon, 11/28/11, M.B.Gaved <m.b.gaved at open.ac.uk> wrote:

From: M.B.Gaved <m.b.gaved at open.ac.uk>
Subject: [Air-L] regarding mobile devices and cancer: M4D and IARC
To: "'ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net'" <ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net>, "'gene loeb'" <geneloeb at gmail.com>
Cc: "'air-l at aoir.org'" <air-l at aoir.org>
Received: Monday, November 28, 2011, 5:42 AM
Regarding research on possible carcinogenic effects of mobile phone use on humans, and ethical issues as a result - 

The results of the IARC working group are published in July 2011's edition of "Lancet Oncology" - it looks like they view the evidence (of mobile phone usage being carinogenic) as being inconclusive, and limited evidence being available: ".the Working Group reached the overall conclusion that these results provided only weak mechanistic evidence relevant to RF-EMF-induced cancer in humans.". 

See: 

Robert Baan, Yann Grosse, Béatrice Lauby-Secretan, Fatiha El Ghissassi, Véronique Bouvard, Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa, Neela Guha, Farhad Islami, Laurent Galichet, Kurt Straif, on behalf of the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer Monograph Working Group, Carcinogenicity of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, The Lancet Oncology, Volume 12, Issue 7, July 2011, Pages 624-626, ISSN 1470-2045, 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70147-4.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1470204511701474)

Kind regards

Mark Gaved

Research Associate
www.xdelia.org
The Open University
Milton Keynes
UK

From: gene loeb [mailto:geneloeb at gmail.com] 
Sent: 25 November 2011 09:49
To: ciresearchers at vancouvercommunity.net
Subject: [ciresearchers] Fwd: [Air-L] M4D and IARC

Here is a good question for consideration by some in our group.
Gene
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Robert Rattle <robert14robert at yahoo.ca>
Date: Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 11:50 AM
Subject: [Air-L] M4D and IARC
To: air-l at aoir.org

I hope I'm not opening up a can of endangered worms with this question...

Given
 the recent announcement by the IARC concerning the possible carcinogenic effects of radiofrequency radiation, is anyone aware of any ethical, health or similar discussions concerning possible
 implications from the use of mobile technologies (M4D) in emerging economy countries?

Similarly, is anyone aware of any human/universal rights, legal, moral, health, or ethical dialogue concerning the unwanted and increased ubiquity of exposure to radiofrequency emissions (in either emerging or advanced economy countries)?

R
_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/

-- 
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

_______________________________________________
The Air-L at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
http://www.aoir.org/