Narrative of the presentation and my interview can be found here: http://www.swinburne.edu.au/lss/bpsyc/science-wireless.html

1. Perspectives on Safety Standards in the
context of the IARC 2B classification of RF
and the Precautionary Principle
Dariusz Leszczynski
Visiting Professor
Swinburne University of Technology
Hawthorn/Melbourne, Australia

2. Safety Standards
- Based on thermal effects of RF-EMF
- Not accounting for other parameters of exposure
- Dosimetry based on macro-scale temperature changes
- Lack of micro-scale dosimetry
- Models do not resemble living matter
- Comparisons to classical heating do NOT apply

3. Macro-scale dosimetry
Water
Salt
Sugar
+ =
Problem
=
free movement of ions

4. Cell Dosimetry ”model”
of the cell
Micro-scale dosimetry

5. Problems associated with the safety standards
No information whether/how cell phone radiation affects humans
No certainty that safety standards protect all users from anything
besides thermal effects
Any equipment radiating below safety standards is considered safe
which might be misleading
Compliance with safety standards is used as an excuse to stop
research funding and to deploy new wireless technologies without
any testing
Non-thermal effects exist but are refused to be studied in depth
because of the “excuse” of safety standards

6. Are the physical principles, on which are based current
safety standards, sufficiently taking into consideration
all pertinent properties of RF-EMF exposures and its
interactions with living matter, to assure users safety?
Safety Standards

7. IARC: RF-EMF – possible carcinogen (category 2B)
Of 30 invited experts the vast majority voted for 2B (I was one of them)
Epidemiology studies - Interphone & Hardell studies
- no reliable exposure data
- risk increase in long-term avid users
- Danish Cohort – no effect but no exposure data at all
- children – only CEFALO
- exposures for 2-4 years
- has no statistical power to detect small risk
- trend data - Little et al. 2012: slow rise in USA
- trend similar to Interphone “prediction”
Human studies - majority are “feelings” studies
Animal studies - no classical toxicology possible
- life-time exposures show no effect
- co-carcinogen studies show some effects
Mechanism studies - insufficient to support/show mechanism (?)

8. Leszczynski et al. 2002 Caraglia et al. 2005 Friedman et al. 2007 Buttiglione et al. 2007 Yu et al. 2008 Lee et al. 2008
Mechanism ?: Cell phone radiation affects stress response

9. Individual cancer risk (statistics from the Finnish Cancer Registry)
Age-adjusted rate of brain cancer for years 2005-2007
Finnish men 11.2 cases/100,000
Finnish women 13.3 cases/100,000
Interphone study - 40% increase (30min/day for 10 years)
(current average 24min/day)
Finnish men 15.7/100,000
Finnish women 18.6/100,000
The Hardell study - 170% increase
Finnish men - 30.2/100,000
Finnish women - 35.9/100,000
The individual risk remains low
Brain cancer would remain a rare disease
Scale of the potential problem (1/4)

10. Impact on the society – if predictions materialize
Newly diagnosed brain and CNS cancer cases in 2007
Finnish men – 372
Finnish women -561
Interphone - 40% increase
Finnish men - additional 149 cases (total of 521 cases)
Finnish women - additional 224 cases (total of 785 cases)
Additional burden of 373 brain cancer cases / year
Hardell studies - 170% increase
Finnish men - additional 632 cases (total of 1004 cases)
Finnish women - additional 953 cases (total of 1515 cases)
Additional burden of 1585 brain cancer cases / year
Scale of the potential problem (2/4)

11. Impact on the society – if predictions materialize
costs of treatment – in USA $100.000 – $500.000/patient
lost productivity and monetary and non-monetary burden
for the families
Finland – population >5,000,000
Interphone - 40% increase
Additional burden of 373 brain cancer cases
Cost $37,300,000 - $186,500,000 /year
Hardell studies - 170% increase
Additional burden of 1585 brain cancer cases
Cost $158,500,000 - $792,500,000 /year
Scale of the potential problem (3/4)

12. Considering that there are over 4 billion of
cell phone users, the burden for the society
might be sizable (if it materializes)
Scale of the potential problem (4/4)

13. Invoking the Precautionary Principle (1/2)
“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.”

14. Invoking the Precautionary Principle (2/2)
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 might be insufficient

15. Burden of proof
“Measures based on the Precautionary Principle
may assign responsibility for producing the
scientific evidence necessary for a comprehensive
risk evaluation.”

16. US Senate Hearing in 2009
Quote from my statement:
“In the present situation of
the scientific uncertainty, the
statements assuring that
there are no proven health
effects and, because of it, the
use of mobile phones is safe
are premature. In my opinion
the current safety standards
are not reliable in the context
of the lack of studies on
human volunteers, children
and on effects o long-term
exposures in humans.”

17. 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
sufficiently supported by the scientific evidence
Users should be informed about the current scientific uncertainty
and advised to limit exposures whenever possible and feasible
Especially children, who will have long time of usage, should be
encouraged to limit exposures
Meanwhile, research should continue to find out whether human
body reacts to cell phone radiation and in what manner