Interphone Study underestimates risk of brain cancer, says International EMF Collaborative

Authors of the report, "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone" have released a technical analysis of the long-awaited Interphone Study published today in the International Journal of Epidemiology. Download Report: www.radiationresearch.org

“Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern, Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone”

Despite the Interphone Study Group's long-awaited acknowledgment of increased risk of brain cancer among long-term, heavy users of cell phones, the International EMF Collaborative says the study's design results in serious underestimation of risk of brain cancer.

The 11 key design flaws were fully detailed in the group's landmark report last August (http://snurl.com/wdgbd). One example was that individuals using cordless phones but not cellphones were considered 'unexposed' for purposes of the Interphone analysis, though exposed to the same radiation as cell phones.

The results published today appear to show that in many cases use of a cellphone protects users from brain tumors, but this is a reflection of the design flaws, according to Lloyd Morgan, B.Sc., lead author of "Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern." Other issues with the Interphone study, he says, include:

• Results were only provided for brain cancers (gliomas) and meningiomas, but not tumors within the 20% of the brain's volume irradiated by cell phones.
• Risk was not broken down by gender, which may have obfuscated even higher risk of meningiomas in women.
• The 5-year old results are woefully inadequate as a gauge of risk today, as adults and children now speak on cell phones many hours a day compared to only 2-2½ hours a month at that time.

Eileen O'Connor, Director of the Radiation Research Trust and member of the International EMF Collaborative, says "Four billion people own mobile phones worldwide, many of those users are children. Responsible governments must advocate for public transparency of risks so that an informed public may have more options to exercise precaution."