Addiction to cell phones: are there
neurophysiological mechanisms involved?
Maria Paz de la Puente1, Afonso Balmori 2
Published in Proyecto, Vol. 61: pp. 8-12, March 2007
Acknowledgments: Claudio Gómez Perretta and Paqui Bonet
Translation from Spanish: Patricia Garcia
At first glance we could consider the addiction to cell phones as belonging to those addictions that
are substance-free, also called psychological addictions. Yet, unlike these, cell phones emit
microwaves that reach the brain, making investigators wonder if there could be a physiological
base for such addictions.
The following article gives a brief overview of the studies made that analyze the effects that these
radiation produce and that bring us closer to the possible addictive effect, similar to those
provoked by conventional drugs. In them, the authors dare to sound the alarm of the abuse that
young people, whose brains are still in the process of maturing, could be prey to the risks derived
from their improper use, and consider that there should be specific education of the responsible use of
cell phones.
Investigation about addictions to new technologies and especially about the abuse of cell
phones is scarce, due in part to its great complexity and to the novelty of this social
phenomenon. There are frequent difficulties in distinguishing between normal use of a
substance or a modern technology, and the abuse of, or addiction to it. In general, one
decides if such abuse or dependence exists, firstly by the intensity and frequency of use,
secondly and more objectively by the amount of money invested in it, and thirdly by the
level of interference that this process has on family, social and work relationships of each
individual involved. In this manner, the interference, or significant restriction in the
integral development of the individual would co-react with the level of compulsion or the
partial or total control of its use, as a common trait described in any implicit activity
would reflect in limiting the freedom or dependence of the individual.
Furthermore, when we speak of addiction, we are referring to the existence of compulsive
behavior or of behaviors that aren’t controlled by the individual, and that distance them
from their normal actions. The methods most commonly used to classify and diagnose
mental and behavioral disorders (DSM 4,CIE 10) coincide in considering ‘substance
dependency’ as a group of behavioral, cognitive and physiological phenomenon that
develop after the continuous use of a substance that typically include: an intense desire to
consume the drug, difficulties in controlling its consumption, persistence in this
consumption in spite of the harmful consequences, prioritizing consumption of the drug
above other activities and obligations, increased tolerance and sometimes signs of
physical abstinence. Other concepts, such as amount of use (occasional, frequent), abuse
and addiction complicate and qualify the diagnosis.
1 Psychologist, Director of Aldaba Foundation – Project Man (an organisation
working with drug addicts; helping them to overcome their addictions.)
2 Biologist investigator of the effects of radio frequencies on living organisms.
Proyecto, Vol. 61: pp. 8-12, March 2007 2
News and polls
With increasing frequency the media brings up news about ‘addiction’ to cell phones.
Studies based on polls and observations made in different countries reach the same
conclusion: young people in particular have become inseparable from their cell phones.
According to the latest studies, one of every three teens admit to being ‘hooked’ by their
cell phones.
The conclusions of a study elaborated by the office of Defense of the Minor of the
Community of Madrid in the year 2004, by the organization ‘Protégeles’ (Protect them),
based on a poll taken of children and adolescents between 11 and 17, are that ‘Separated
from their cell phone, the syndrome is a confirmed and measured reality, not an
exaggeration. 38 percent of those young people from Madrid were said to feel ‘upset’,
‘overwhelmed’ or that they ‘felt awful’ if they couldn’t use their cell phone, normally as a
result of punishment or fault with the phone. According to the specialists, the abuse of the
use of cell phones could be typified as ‘a disorder of addiction that has to be stopped as soon
as possible’ (Paniagua, 2005).
The Consejería de Sanidad de la Comunidad de Madrid (Social Security Office in
Madrid) through its anti-drug agency, has recently introduced, within its program of
preventing drug addiction destined for schools of this region, a pilot project entitled,
‘Preventing addictions to New Technologies’.
A study by the University of Navarro affirms that young people between 15 and 19
admit being addicted to their cell phones (Naval et al., 2004)
Another study developed far from Spain, in South Korea, demonstrates that the youth of
that country suffer dependency on technology, and that 30% suffer from confusion and
transitory depression when they can’t use their cell phone.
Last but not least, British scientists have decided that more and more people are getting
addicted to their cell phones, causing stress and irritability (BBC, 2006).
Dr David Sheffield, from the University of Staffordshire, has found behavioral problems
related to the use of cell phone among the 106 individuals studied. About 16% of those
interviewed had a behavioral problem due to the use of cell phones. The results
demonstrated that when there is a reduction in the use of cell phones, there is a lowering
of blood pressure.
Similarities with the conventional addictive process
Although the accepted international classifications that are habitually used in clinical
psychology consider addictions and those disorders of the control of impulses as
independent entities, they have many similarities between them, as a matter of fact, many
authors consider obsessive gambling as a substance-free addiction. (Tirapu et al., 2004)
It may at first glance seem complicated to speak of a cell phone addict as we speak of a
drug addict, but if we stop to analyze this situation, it is not difficult to establish
similarities between them.
Comparing those that use the cell phone with moderation, the ‘addicts’ present a
permanent state of vigilance or alert, focused on whatever signal that may come from the
phone, which in turn provokes the almost compulsive and uncontrolled necessity of
checking the cell phone constantly, independently of what they’re doing.
It almost seems as if they need to dedicate more and more time to it (tolerance perhaps),
and this instrument begins to occupy a very special place in their lives. Recent studies
have also shown that those ‘addicts’ that stop using their cell phones show a syndrome of
withdrawal that is both physical and psychological. This syndrome is characterized by
Proyecto, Vol. 61: pp. 8-12, March 2007 3
observable symptoms of anguish, anxiety, nervousness, irritability etc. These manifestations
disappear once the ‘addict’ can use their phone again. The ‘addict’ also seems to have
problems of insecurity, low self-esteem, difficulties in establishing inter-personal
relationships, isolation and other emotional factors. We have begun to see actual cases of
people who look for rehabilitation for cell phone addiction in drug treatment centers
(Bononato, 2003).
Neurophysiological bases for addiction
Looking at this problem through the psychobiological perspective, different investigations
have been based, since several years ago, on the neurophysiological base of addictions in
general. (Snyder, 1996). They want to determine which neurotransmitter intervenes, and in
which parts of the brain they act, when a person presents a disorder because of the use of
addictive substances. Dopamine seems to be the most active, although it’s not the only
one. Although each drug possesses its own mechanism of action, all of them intervene to a
greater or lesser measure on a neuronal reward circuit known as the mesolimbic
dopaminergic system, that favors, by means of pleasurable sensations, adaptive
behaviors. Those systems of reward are located in the primitive part of the brain, where
the processes of survival are inaccessible to the conscious or voluntary mind. We know
that several natural substances and activities touch this system, and that show properties
of positive reward (food, drink, sexual behavior etc.). The opiate receptors in the
mammalian brain especially are concentrated mainly in this limbic system which regulates,
among other things, emotional behavior. Because of this, the need to consume is produced
in apparent absence of conscious, rational behavior, hence the difficulty of leaving the
vicious cycle of drug abuse. The drugs that are abused have in common the ability to serve
as a positive reinforcement, and of controlling behavior in a way that is similar to the
natural positive reinforcement. The difference lies in that the natural reinforcement
normally enters this system of reward through the senses, while drugs stimulate this
circuit directly. The drugs that are being used create a false signal in the brain that
indicate that a beneficial adaptive has arrived. This cerebral signal then produces an
increase in the frequency of consumption, putting to one side the adaptive behavior.
(Tirapu et al., 2004)
The effects of cell phone radiation on the brain
As mentioned above, addiction to cell phones could be counted among those considered
substance-free, or psychological addictions; perhaps we could include compulsive
gambling, compulsive use of video games, or the Internet. Psychological addictions don’t
have chemical substances in them, but there is a degree of dependency and a certain
amount of loss of control by the one who has it. (Echeburúa and Fernandez-Montalvo,
2002) And yet, in contrast to these, cell phones emit microwaves, high electromagneticmodulated
radiation also known as radio-frequencies, that interfere in important bodily
systems (nervous, reproductive, endocrine, immunological) as well as in the processes and
structures characteristic of living organisms, brain waves, the blood-brain barrier, the
pineal gland, and DNA (Salford, 2003; Kramarenko, 2003; Navarro et al., 2003; Reflex,
2004; Balmori, 2004).
Dependency or addiction to cell phones could have a physiological base, due to the
interruptions that the microwaves provoke in the neurotransmitters in the neural synapses
of the reward system of the brain. These effects are still under investigation and it is too
soon to understand the neurophysiological basis of cell phone addiction.
In this brief review we will analyze the reported effects that this radiation has on
neurotransmitters and post-synaptic receptors that could help us understand the possibly
addictive effect similar to that produced by conventional drugs.
Proyecto, Vol. 61: pp. 8-12, March 2007 4
Henry Lai, the American scientist, of the Bioelectromagnetics Research Laboratory of the
University of Washington, discovered that microwaves increase the activity of brain
endorphins or endogenous opioids (the biological basis of addiction to opium and its
derivates as well as alcohol) in similar ways to morphine. Even Dr Lai (in a personal
communication) commented how Russian doctors used microwaves with patients with
‘cravings’ for heroin, although with inconclusive results. There could also be a suggested
existence of an opiate-like action, similar to actual opiates and alcohol, as being partly
responsible of its pleasurable ‘craving’ and of the positive reinforcement observed in cell
phone addicts. In another study by the same author, the effects of radio-frequencies on
the hippocampus were blocked by a pre-treatment in rats with opiate antagonists,
naloxone and naltrexone, which suggests that radio frequencies activate endogenous
opioids in the brain (Lai et al., 1989a). He also found that the receptors for
benzodiazepine (BDZ) related to anxiety responses and stress in animals, were activated
after being exposed to radio frequencies, probably related to the reinforcement of those
euphoric properties of opiates. (Braestrup et al., 1979; Lai et al., 1992b;Walker and
Ettenberg, 2001). Besides, during the same conditions of irradiation, different regions of
the brain can have different sensitivity or vulnerability to radio frequencies and provoke
different responses (Lai et al., 1991), but it seems that the long-term effects depend on the
length of exposure (Lai, 1997). In this way and in general, the effects of radio frequencies
on addiction imply several biological processes that are similar to other agents, such as
certain psychoactive drugs: alcohol, opiates and benzodiazepines (Lai, 1999).
Physiology professor W Ross Adey, recently deceased from the University of California
explained that the union of neurotransmitters GABA, Acetylcholine and Glutamate
(closely related with the reward system) to its specific receptor, is sensitive to weak
modulated microwave fields (a characteristic found in cell phone radiation) (Adey, 2003).
A Working Hypothesis, Conclusions and Recommendations
Bearing these discoveries in mind, it is plausible to deduce that the morbidity relating to
the use of cell phones could have a neurophysiological basis in common with some
conventional drugs, through acting on neurotransmitters – like the response to
electromagnetic exposure described above – and having similar effects on the cerebral
reward circuit.
In this way, it could not really be considered an addiction ‘without substance’; we could
take this idea further, considering its own behavior ‘per se’ because it shares mechanisms
similar to conventional drug addiction. Lastly, the radiation emitted by the cell phone
would be a positive reinforcer that not only acts through conventional sensory channels
but also through the reward circuit, acting directly through microwaves on the brain.
We find all the requirements of DSM4 in the street, in the polls as well as in laboratory
studies that show certain effects that radiation in the brain could justify the addictive
behavior. So then, what are we waiting for to take steps with the general public and
especially with young people, who comprise the most vulnerable section of the
population? We must teach people to be autonomous, with a sense of judgment, capable
of choosing and of using responsibly those means that are available, but in order to do
this, we must inform and educate. We are facing new phenomena in which there are
hidden risks (purposely hidden?) with negative consequences for everybody’s health.
Young people, once again, are in the most vulnerable age range. Clearly they are also big
consumers – in this case of cell phones – but since their brains and bodies are still
maturing and developing, this shows how unwise the risks are of undue use of cell phones.
While the scientific view progresses and becomes more clear, it is urgent (under the
precautionary principle) that adults be informed, have a hands-on attitude and be
capable of incorporating facts that can help us educate (or re-educate) especially the
young in the responsible use of the cell phone.
Proyecto, Vol. 61: pp. 8-12, March 2007 5
Bibliography
Adey WR (2003), ‘Electromagnetic fields, the modulation of brain tissue functions – A possible
paradigm shift in biology’. In Smith B, Adelman G (eds): International Encyclopedia of
Neuroscience. New York
Balmori A (2004), ‘Posibles efectos de las ondas electromagnéticas utilizadas en la telefonía
inalámbrica sobre los seres vivos’. Ardeola, 51: 477-490
BBC World Service, 14 de septiembre de 2006: La adicción al teléfono móvil.
Bononato L (2003), Adicciones y nuevas tecnologías. Informe Inédito. Asociación Proyecto Hombre
Braestrup C, Neilsen M, Neilsen EB, Lyon M (1979), ‘Benzodiazepine receptors in the brain as
affected by different experimental stresses: the changes are small and not unidirectional’.
Psychopharmacology, 65: 273-277
Echeburúa E, Fernández-Montalvo J (2002), ‘Juego patológico y adicciones sin drogas:
tratamiento’. Revista Proyecto Hombre, 44: 13-16
Kramarenko AV, Tan U (2003), ‘Effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human EEG: a
brain mapping study’. Int. J. Neurosci., 113: 1007-1019
Lai H, Carino MA, Horita A, Guy AW (1989a), ‘Low-level microwave irradiation and central
cholinergic systems’. Pharmac. Biochem. Behav., 33: 131-138
Lai H, Carino MA, Horita A, Guy AW (1989b), ‘Acute low-level microwave exposure and central
cholinergic activity: a dose-response study’. Bioelectromagnetics, 10: 203-209
Lai H, Carino MA, Horita A, Guy AW (1992a), ‘Opioid receptor subtypes that mediate a
microwave-induced decrease in central cholinergic activity in the rat’. Bioelectromagnetics,
13:237-246
Lai H, Carino MA, Horita A, Guy AW (1992b), ‘Single vs repeated microwave exposure: effects
on benzodiazepine receptors in the brain of the rat’. Bioelectromagnetics, 13:57-66
Lai H (1997). ‘Neurological Effects of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation Relating to
Wireless Communication Technology’. Conference: Mobile Phones-Is there a Health Risk?,
September 16-17, 1997. Brussels, Belgium
Lai H (1999), Memory and Behavior. ‘The Biological Effects, Health Consequences and Standards
for Pulsed Radiofrequency Field’, Sicily, Italy
Naval C, Ch. Sádaba y J Brigué (2004), Impacto de las TIC (Tecnologías de la Información y
Comunicación) en las relaciones sociales de los jóvenes navarros. Universidad de Navarra
Navarro EA, Segura J, Portolés M, Gómez Perretta C (2003), ‘The microwave syndrome: A
preliminary study in Spain’. Electromagnetic Biol. Med., 22: 161-169
Paniagua A (2005), El 38% de los niños sienten ansiedad si no llevan su móvil. El Norte de Castilla
(Vida y Ocio, 25 de mayo de 2005) Colpisa
Reflex (2004), http://www.verum-foundation.de/cgi-bin/content.cgi?id=euprojekte01
Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR (2003), ‘Nerve Cell Damage in
Mammalian Brain after Exposure to Microwaves from GSM Mobile Phones’. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 111:881- 893
Snyder SH (1996), Drogas y cerebro. Biblioteca Scientific American. 240 pp. Barcelona
Tirapu J, Landa N, Lorea I (2004), Cerebro y adicción. Gobierno de Navarra
Proyecto, Vol. 61: pp. 8-12, March 2007 6

Caroline Davies
The Observer,
Sunday 26 April 2009
Brain tumours are the leading cause of childhood cancer deaths in Britain, with half as many more children dying from the illness as from leukaemia. Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that in 2007 there were 47% more deaths from brain tumours among under-15s than from leukaemia. Yet that is not reflected in the money spent on research, say campaigners. This week sees the launch of Brain Tumour Research, a national coalition of 14 charities, which believe that research is "woefully underfunded". It is backed by celebrities including the actress Sheila Hancock, whose grandson survived a tumour, and actor Martin Kemp and opera singer Russell Watson, who were both treated successfully. Hancock, 76, the widow of actor John Thaw, saw her grandson Jack diagnosed with a rare tumour aged four. "It is terrible to watch a grandchild go through the diagnosis and treatment of a brain tumour. You feel so helpless." Jack was successfully operated on. Kevin O'Neill, a consultant neurosurgeon at Imperial College London, said: "Brain tumours are on the increase, reportedly in the region of 2% per year. But in my unit we have seen the number of cases nearly double in the last year."
braintumourresearch.org

Paul Doyon says on his blog
I was recently telling my students that there is going to be a brain tumor epidemic in the next 5-10 years. I was explaining to them that it usually takes about ten years of cell phone use before the tumor shows up and proceeded to ask them "How long have you had a cell phone?" Answers were "five years," seven years," "four years" and so on. When I was taking role, I noticed that one of my students had been absent for about five classes. I asked her why and she replied "It is because I have a brain tumor."

Author’s note:
On the website of the National Grid in Northeastern USA, it is mentioned under the
section, “Additional Information”: “If you decide to research EMF, it’s important to check the
credentials of those who provide or produce the information. For example, websites can be
developed by anyone regardless of training or experience and are sometimes created to promote
limited agendas or points of view.”
National Grid then lists a number of EMF websites that “were selected solely on the basis of
the scientific qualifications of the sponsoring organizations. These sites are sponsored by federal
agencies and professional organizations and provide information that reflects the work of many
experienced scientists.”
Included on their list of approved web sites are the locations for the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the World Health
Organization’s International EMF Project, established and headed by Dr. Michael
Repacholi.
The following paper very much supports the National Grid’s call to check the
credentials of those who provide EMF information for limited agendas or points of
view.
Don Maisch
Reference: http://www.nationalgridus.com/non_html/shared_env_emfslink.pdf
1
Conflict of Interest and Bias in Health Advisory Committees:
A case study of the WHO’s EMF Task Group
Maisch Don,
JACNEM, Vol. 21 No. 1, pages 15-17, April 2006
Introduction
The potential problem of conflicts-of-interest biasing outcomes in papers submitted to
bio-medical journals, including papers published in journals by expert advisory bodies,
was an issue addressed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors in
November 3003. To quote from their “Uniform Requirements”:
"Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has
financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions. . . The
potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the
relationship affects his or her scientific judgement. Financial relationships . . . are the most easily
identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal,
the authors, and of science itself." (1)
This paper briefly examines this problem, using recent actions taken by the World
Health Organisation’s (WHO) International EMF Project and the International
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
In both organisations the case is presented that maintaining independence from
industry vested interests is essential for maintaining scientific objectivity and credibility
in giving expert advice on public health matters.
************
At the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Michael
Repacholi, head of the WHO’s International EMF Project, informed the Senate
Committee that the WHO had a firm policy against industry involvement in its
processes. To Quote:
“[T]he world health Organization does not allow industry to participate in either standard
setting or in health risk assessment. The WHO takes the view that there cannot be industry
representation on standard setting working groups. There cannot be someone on the working
group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when they derive benefit
from that industry.”(2)
ICNIRP clearly states on its website that all commission members are independent
experts in their respective scientific disciplines and do not represent either their
countries or institutes and specifically they cannot be employed by industry. In order to
maintain this independence from industry or other vested interests it is stated:
2
“Members are reminded frequently of the need to declare any interests detrimental to
ICNIRP’s status as an independent advisory body. . . ICNIRP also does not accept funding
from industry.”(3)
So these requirements were established so that ICNIRP’s credibility of its advice and
guidelines cannot be said to be influenced or biased by industry vested interests. Dr.
Ken Joyner, from Motorola, stressed the independence of ICNIRP from industry at the
Australian Senate “Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation” in May 2001. Joyner stated:
“If you want to look at one standards body that has specifically excluded any industry
representatives, there is the ICNIRP body. You cannot be a member of the ICNIRP if you are
part of industry. They exclude you from that process.” (4)
The ICNIRP website also explains that the scientific reviews carried out by ICNIRP
members are combined with risk assessments done by WHO International EMF Project
working groups with the resultant being the publication of ICNIRP’s EMF exposure
guidelines. Therefore the claim that ICNIRP’s scientific advice is value-free from
industry influence must also include the same requirement for any WHO risk
assessment task group. That was what Repacholi stated to the Australian Senate
Committee in May 2001 (as quoted previously).
“There cannot be someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects
for an industry when they derive benefit from that industry”.
The close working relationship between ICNIRP and the WHO’s EMF Task Group
evaluating power frequency research is seen in the make up of the membership of the
Task Group. Out of the 20 members from 17 countries (5), we have Paolo Vecchia, the
current ICNIRP Chairman, Anders Ahlbon, Larry Anderson, Rudiger Matthes as
members of ICNIRP’s main commission, with Ahlbon as also on ICNIRP’s Standing
Committee on Epidemiology. Other ICNIRP Standing Committee members include
Christoffer Johansen, Jukka Juutilainen, Alasdair McKinlay and Zhengping Xu. Eric van
Rongen is a consulting expert for ICNIRP. In addition, Michael Repacholi, head of the
WHO’s International EMF Project, is also Chairman Emeritis of ICNIRP. (6)
Including Repacholi, half of the official members of the WHO task group are also
members of ICNIRP, so it is obvious that there are no secrets between ICNIRP and the
Task Group.
Industry influence endemic in the decision making process
As reported by the New York based publication, Microwave News, on October 1, 2005,
the 20 member WHO Task Group writing a new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC)
document on power frequency EMFs included, at the request of Repacholi,
representatives from the electrical utilities, or organisations with close ties with the
industry. Their task was to both assist in writing the initial draft and review the
completed draft.(7) This is in clear conflict with what Repacholi stated in his testimony
in the May 2001 Australian Senate Inquiry hearings. To quote again: “There cannot be
someone on the working group who is having an influence on health effects for an industry when
they derive benefit from that industry.”
3
One of the central authors of the draft, and member of the EHC Task Group, Leeka
Kheifets, was a former WHO assistant to Michael Repacholi. She disclosed in Sept. 2005
in a letter (declaring any potential conflicts of interest) to the British Medical Journal
that she “works with the Electric Power Research Institute… and consults with utilities.”(8)
Other power industry representatives who assisted Kheifets on preparing the draft
were Gabor Mezei, from the EPRI, Jack Sahl from Southern California Edison, USA, and
Jack Swanson from the National Grid, UK. When Repacholi sent a draft of the EHC out
for review in early July 2005, the reviewers included representatives from the power
industry bodies: The Federation of Electric Power Companies of Japan, Pacificorp
(USA), Hydro-Quebec (Canada), the Utility Health Sciences Group (USA) and Exponent
Inc, (USA). (9) The question of liability must have also been on the agenda, as Exponent
has described its business activities as follows:
“Exponent serves clients in automotive, aviation, chemical, construction, energy,
government, health, insurance, manufacturing, technology and other sectors of the economy.
Many of our engagements are initiated by lawyers or insurance companies, whose clients
anticipate, or are engaged in, litigation over an alleged failure of their products, equipment or
services.” (10)
In addition to WHO staff, the only other observers that Repacholi invited to the WHO
Task Group meeting in Geneva on 3 October to recommend exposure limits, were eight
representatives from the power industry. Members of the press were barred from
attending.(11) In addition the meeting was not publicised on either the WHO web site
meetings list or the Bioelectromagnetics Society Newsletter’s conference calendar and
very few members of the EMF scientific community, including important EMF
epidemiologists, were even aware of the meeting. (12) Only industry representatives
received invitations. Why were the epidemiologists who were directly involved in the
research that the WHO’s risk assessment task group would evaluate, not also invited as
observers and reviewers?
The Microwave News article points out that a number of independent researchers were
involved in the preparation and review of the draft, but it was “highly unusual, if not
unprecedented, for a WHO health document to be reviewed by so many with such
strong ties to the affected industry,” (13)
One example of an industry reviewer’s viewpoint, seeking to downplay potential health
hazards, is seen in the comments from Michel Plante, representing Hydro-Quebec:
“The whole section on cancer seems more like a desperate attempt to maintain some positive
statistical association from epidemiological studies alive than a factual and honest
presentation of arguments both, for and against, carcinogenicity.” (14)
Plante’s role as a protector of his employer’s interests in denying a cancer link with
EMFs was amply demonstrated in his involvement, as a Hydro-Quebec representative,
in suppressing potentially damaging cancer data in a 1994 Hydro-Quebec funded
epidemiological study By Dr. Gilles Theriault et al, from McGill University. The initial
analysis of the data collected from three electric utilities found that workers who had
the greatest exposures to magnetic fields had twelve times the expected rate of
astrocytomas, a type of brain tumour, based on a small number of cases. (15)
4
In a later re-analysis of the data (16), this time looking at high frequency transients
(HFT), the McGill University team found up to a 10-fold increased risk of developing
lung cancer amongst highly exposed utility workers, with a “very clear” exposureresponse
relationship. (17)
When Gilles Theriault’s McGill team wanted to further analyse the HFT data for other
associations, Hydro-Quebec, which funded the $3 million study, and therefore owned
the collected data, refused further access to the data. Plant said at the time that “We
have a contract problem that has to be resolved and there will be no new mandate until
it is solved.” Plante argued that by Theriault publishing the findings on HFT he had
violated the contract with the utilities. Many senior EMF researchers and
epidemiologists saw the HFT data as having important implications and needing
further analysis by other researchers. (18) As of October 2005 the Hydro-Quebec HFT
data has continued to be suppressed from any further analysis from the scientific
community – and Plante, as Hydro-Quebec’s man at the centre of that suppression, has
now been asked by Repacholi to review the WHO’s Environmental Health Criteria risk
assessment.
It is not known if Plante was asked at the meetings about the “positive statistical
association” seen in the Hydro-Quebec HFT data but he could have replied that it is not
important because it has not yet been replicated!
The Utility Health Sciences Group, another power industry group that Repacholi asked
to review the EHC draft document, plainly indicated that they considered increased
costs to industry should take precedence over health considerations when they
proposed a change in the chapter on protective measures that stated:
“It should also be pointed out that redirecting facilities or redesigning electrical systems may
be so expensive as to be inconsistent with the low-cost and no-cost steps typically viewed as
prudent avoidance.” (19)
The UHSG also proposed a statement be included in the summary”
“It would be useful for the summary to include a clear statement that the scientific research
does not establish ELF EMF as a cause or contributing factor in any disease or adverse health
effect, including cancer.” (20)
The Myth of not accept funding from industry
It is stated on the ICNIRP web site that in order to protect its status as an independent
advisory body, “ ICNIRP also does not accept funding from industry”.(21) When it comes to
the WHO’s International EMF Project, however, no such restrictions apply. As
Repacholi has stated, the “[EMF]Project can receive funding from any source through Royal
Adelaide Hospital; an agency established through WHO Legal Department agreement to collect
funds for the project.”(22) Questions of a conflict-of-interest and even money laundering
could be raised at this point when it was revealed by “Microwave News” that Repacholi,
as head of the EMF Project, receives $150,000 annually from the cellphone industry. (23)
However, Repacoli could rightfully still claim that he does not receive any direct
5
funding from industry sources since it is funneled through the Royal Adelaide Hospital.
This arrangement may be in violation of current WHO rule against employees and
consultants accepting any “gift or remumeration” from external sources “incompatible”
with their duties to WHO. (24)
A Claytons oversight committee?
According to a fact sheet “New Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines” published by
the European Commission in December 2005, an “International Advisory Committee”
(IAC) has been set up to provide oversight to the WHO’s International EMF Project.
This committee consists of representatives of international organisations, independent
scientific institutions and national governments who are supporting the Project. (25)
In this case IAC oversight should essentially operate much the same as Judicial
oversight where a judicial branch of the government watches or monitors what is going
on or happening in a case or matter. In the judicial arena it is a form of checks and
balances that operates to keep law officers from abusing their powers. (26) In the case of
the WHO’s EMF Project IAC oversight should operate to prevent WHO officials from
abusing their powers - and this should include preventing the possibility of bias
through conflict-of-interest. It would also be important for the IAC to maintain an
"arms-length" distance from the project activities that it is supposed to monitor.
The question then needs to be asked of the IAC: Why have they failed to intervene in
the case of blatant industry influence on the WHO’s EMF Task Group?
Forgotten lessons: Big Tobacco and
Protecting the Integrity of WHO Decision Making
In July 2000 the WHO Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents released a
260 page report documenting the tactics used by the tobacco industry’s strategies to
undermine the work of the WHO. (27) At the same time the WHO issued a 15 page
response document listing a detailed response to ensure that the WHO was never
undermined again. Just a few of the 58 recommendations were as follows (To quote):
#6. WHO should urge other UN organisations to investigate possible tobacco company
influences on their decisions and programs, and to report their findings publically.
# 7. WHO should advocate implementation and consistent enforcement of effective conflict of
interest and ethics policies throughout UN agencies.
#8. WHO should urge Member States to conduct their own investigations of possible tobacco
company influence on national decisions and policies, and to publish reports on their
findings.”
#11: Appoint an ombudsman or other independent offices, outside the standard lines of
reporting authority, with autonomy and clear authority for enforcing ethical rules.
6
#12. Disseminate conflict of interest rules more broadly.# 14. Introduce a formal process for
vetting prospective employees, consultants, advisers, and committee members, to identify
conflicts of interest.
# 19. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers, and committee members from holding any
substantial financial affiliation with the tobacco industry, including any employee or
consulting relationship. . . “
#20. Disqualify any professional services from performing work on behalf of WHO if the firm
also provides a tobacco company with services likely to be adverse to the interest of public
health. . . “
#21. Prohibit employees, consultants, advisers and committee members from accepting any
item of value from a Tobacco company or its affiliates. . . “
# 35. WHO and IARC should take steps to educate their scientific investigators and
collaborators about tobacco company efforts to undermine research and the need for special
vigilance in protecting the integrity of tobacco-related research.”(28)
Although the above sampling of WHO recommendations were in response to Big
Tobacco’s attempts to undermine WHO integrity, its direct relevance to other large
industrial interests cannot be ignored, be it the power industry or Telecommunications.
Unfortunately it seems that in this case at least, WHO has forgotten the hard lessons
learnt with its previous experiences with Big Tobacco. In the case of WHO’s Task Group
writing the new Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) for power frequency EMFs, a
violation of the above recommendations urgently calls for an independent evaluation to
protect both public health and WHO’s public credibility.
In Conclusion
It is acknowledged that in an ever increasingly globalized world the reliance on
international organisations to set standards to protect public health is an irrefutable fact
of modern life. It is also a fact that international organizations charged with this task
need to be “eternally vigilant” to ensure that their organisations are not co-opted by
vested interests groups – as exampled by Big Tobacco and WHO.
However when it comes to non-ionizing radiation issues ( in this case for power
frequency health risk assessment) the evidence is clear that Michael Repacholi has used
his standing in both WHO and ICNIRP to stack the WHO’s Environmental Health
Criteria Task Group for power frequency exposures with representatives of the power
industry in contravention of WHO policy. This can only be to the detriment of the
group’s ability to evaluate the scientific literature in an unbiased way. This action can
only be construed as being aimed at ensuring that industry involvement in determining
the WHO Environmental Health Criteria will bias ICNIRP’s risk assessment for power
frequency exposure limits for years to come. This will conveniently provide economic
protection for the industry against the need to spend enormous sums of money on
upgrading distribution systems as well as risks of litigation. Such a blatant disregard for
the fundamental principles of credible science as well as WHO’s mission on protecting
7
world health speaks of a desperation to bury independent science at all costs, even if
that cost is at the integrity of WHO.
References
1) Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and
Editing for Biomedical Publication, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors,
http://wwwicmje.org/index.html#peer, page 8, November 2003
2) Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, Report of the Senate Environment,
Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee, Section
4.115, page 151, May 2001
3) http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm Accessed August 22, 2005.
4) Inquiry into Electromagnetic Radiation, (as above), Section 4.68, page 137, May 2001
5) As listed in Microwave News, WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF
Meeting, Bars the Press, Sept. 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
6) As listed on the ICNIRP website: http://www.icnirp.de Accessed October 12, 2005.
7) Microwave News, From the Field, WHO and Electric Utilities: A Partnership on
EMFs, October 1, 2005.
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
8) Letters, Childhood cancer and power lines, British Medical Journal, Vol. 331, pp. 634-
638, Sept.17, 2005.
9) Microwave News, WHO and Electric Utilities… (as above).
10) Bohme, SR, et al, Maximizing Profit and Endangering Health: Corporate Strategies
to Aviod Litigation and Regulation, Int J Occup Environ Health, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.338-
348, Oct/Dec 2005.
11) Microwave News, WHO Welcomes Electric Utility Industry To Key EMF Meeting,
Bars the Press, Sept. 22, 2005
http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#partners Accessed October 10,
2005.
12) ibid.
13) ibid.
14) ibid.
8
15)Theriault G, et al, “Cancer Risks Associated with Occupational Exposure to magnetic
Fields Among Electric Utility Workers in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, and France:
1970-1989, American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 139, pp. 550-572, 1994.
16) Armstrong B et al, “Association Between Exposure to Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields
and Cancer in Electric Utility Workers in Quebec, Canada, and France”, American
Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 140, pp. 805-820, 1994.
17) Microwave News, “Transients and Lung Cancer: A “Strong” Association and a
“Remarkable” Exposure-Response”, Vol. XIV, No. 6, Nov/Dec 1994.
18) ibid
19) Microwave News, WHO and Electric Utilities… (as above)
20) ibid.
21) http://www.icnirp.de/what.htm (as above)
22) Welcoming speech by Michael Repacholi, 9th International Advisory Committee
(IAC) meeting, Istanbul Turkey, June 7, 2004.
23) Communication with Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, November 21, 2005.
Also see: http://www.microwavenews.com/fromthefield.html#whoottawa
24) “Response of WHO to the Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents”, WHO, June 10, 2000.
25) Science for Environment Policy, New Electromagnetic Fields Exposure Guidelines,
European Commission DG ENV, News Alert Issue 3, December 2005.
26) Wikipedia definition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_oversight, Accessed February
25, 2006.
27) Tobacco Company Strategies to Undermine Tobacco Control Activities at the World
Health Organization, Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents, July 2000.
28) Response of WHO to the Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry
Documents, WHO document, June 10, 2000.

Irradiated Food Causes Brain Damage
A company testing the effects of irradiated food on growth and development reported that some cats fed such a diet developed severe neurological dysfunction, including movement disorders, vision loss and paralysis.The cats developed the symptoms, which appeared to be the result of a demyelinating disease, after being on the diet for three to four months. Myelin is a fatty insulator of nerve fibers that degrades in a host of human central nervous system disorders, such as multiple sclerosis.The afflicted cats were shown to have severe and widely distributed demyelination of the central nervous system. In cats removed from the diet, demyelinated axons slowly became remyelinated, but the restored myelin sheaths were still not as thick as healthy myelin.The exact cause of the neurological affliction in the cats on the experimental diet is unknown.

THE MOBILE PHONE LINK
30.04.09, 12:14pm
The increase in brain tumours coincides with the increase in use of mobile phones.All independent research shows and increased risk of brain tumour on the side of the head where you hold the phone.See this recent report from Australian brain surgeons on TVhttp://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=797215Australian TV 60 Minutes2 top brain surgeons say prolonged use of mobile phones could double the risk of malignant brain tumours.DR CHARLIE TEO: I'm incredibly worried, concerned, depressed at the number of kids I'm seeing coming in with brain tumours. Malignant brain tumours.Just in the last three or four weeks I've seen nearly half a dozen kids with tumours which really should have been benign and they've all been nasty, malignant brain tumours. We are doing something terribly wrong.For more information see the new site soon to be launched at www.wiredchild.org