Dear Mayor Burnham,
I’m sorry to send more words in your direction but this is so very serious. I’m not spending hours on the computer trying to filter the true from the false and to raise awareness in other people for the fun of it. It’s a pretty tedious endeavour. However, it’s necessary. Today I will begin to address Dr David Grimes’ Guardian article. It will take more than one email. The reason I’m doing this is because the publishing of these two articles goes to the very heart of the all-encompassing use of deception and lies to cover up the known harmful effects from radiofrequency radiation.
When it comes to the health effects of cell phone technology, the task of trying to find the truth, or sometimes the half-truth, amidst the lies is a challenging one. A PhD indicates an academic standard but not necessarily an ‘integrity standard’. A vested interest can translate into a ‘funding interest’. A research scientist with a family and a mortgage can be vulnerable and sometimes, honouring what they know to be the truth can come at a price. It might bring the risk of sacrificing domestic security and seeing loved ones suffer… a situation known as ‘being between a rock and a hard place”. Some people are easily corrupted, others might be harder to corrupt but either way corruption has to be taken into account.
‘Nobody likes to be wrong’ is another feature of the conundrum… people tenaciously hang onto what they think and believe and most folk don’t like being proved wrong. Cognitive bias, cognitive preference, cognitive opportunism, cognitive ambitiousness, cognitive distortion… and just plain pride or fear, inevitably play their part in scientific research as much as they do in anything else. It’s ‘to be human’. Of course, another issue which is tangled up in this search for truth is encompassed by the well know saying ”There are three kinds of lies… lies, damned lies and statistics.” All three appear to apply.
All of this said, I am finding scientists who do show integrity as well as scientific knowledge, expertise and a grasp of the situation, and whose enquiry embodies a genuine and honest quest for true scientific results and for the safety and wellbeing of humans.
I will now take on the mantle of ‘devil’s advocate’ and look at Dr David Robert Grimes’ Guardian article, ‘Mobile phones and Cancer – the full picture’, published on 28th July 2018. The article serves as a vitriolic attack on the Observer article, ‘The inconvenient truth about cancer and mobile phones’, written by Mark Hertsgaard and Mark Dowie published on 14th July 2018. Throughout, Dr Grimes positions himself on academia’s lofty ‘high ground’, consistently and condescendingly affirming his scientific prowess and claiming ownership of unequivocal truth whilst viciously shredding the critiqued article and besmirching its authors.
So…DR DAVID GRIMES: ‘Mobile phones and cancer – the full picture’
IN RESPONSE: … ‘the full picture’? Well, as the full picture on mobile phone health effects isn’t remotely within grasp, and even if it were, it wouldn’t fit into something the size of a Guardian article, I think the title reflects either hubris or spin. The only other option would be stupidity… and we can obviously count that one out.
’DR DAVID GRIMES: cherry-picking and misrepresentation’
The opening paragraph lays bare a seemingly astounding conclusion – the US’s National Toxicology Program concluded that mobile phones cause cancer. This is, to put it charitably, a devious extrapolation. The study in question observed that rats exposed to intense radiofrequency (RF) had slightly higher rates of brain cancers relative to the control group. But far from being a smoking gun, the flaws in this study paint a muddled picture. First, the preprint reveals that the rats in the RF-exposure group lived significantly longer than those controls. As cancer is primarily correlated with age, it’s not surprising the longer-lived group would get more cancer, but it would be equally daft to presume RF increases lifespan based on these results.
1.Anthony B. Miller, MD is a physician-epidemiologist, currently Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto and a Senior Advisor to Environmental Health Trust. Dr. Miller has served as Director of the Epidemiology Unit of the National Cancer Institute of Canada, Chair of the Department of Preventive Medicine and Biostatistics, University of Toronto, Senior Epidemiologist, International Agency for Research on Cancer, and Head, Division of Cancer Epidemiology, German Cancer Research Centre, 2000-03; He has served as a consultant to the Division of Cancer Prevention, U.S. National Cancer Institute and to the World Health Organization
From Dr Miller’s statement on the National Toxicology Program: ”The National Toxicology Programme study is the largest and most well designed animal study ever done…. The findings were that two types of cancer occurred in excess, the very same cancers found in excess in the epidemiology studies of long term cell phone users.”
Dr Grimes made no reference to this extremely significant correlation in his scathing dismissal of the study.
Taken from the Statement of Anthony Miller MD
“In the NTP rat study there was a significant increase in incidence of schwannomas of the heart in the animals exposed to radiofrequency radiation, with a dose-response relationship in male rats, as well as the occurrence of gliomas of the brain, though this increase was not statistically significant. Further, a significant increase in DNA damage was observed in hippocampus cells of the brain of male rats exposed to radiofrequency radiation.
In the NTP mouse study, there was a significant positive trend in the incidence of alveolar/bronchiolar adenoma or carcinoma (combined) of the lung in males exposed to radiofrequency radiation, while compared to the sham controls, all exposed groups of females had increased incidence of malignant lymphoma. Further, significant increases in DNA damage were observed in cells of the frontal cortex of male mice exposed to radiofrequency radiation. …
…This animal evidence, together with the extensive human evidence from case-control studies on brain cancer in Sweden, France, Canada and other countries, coupled with the rising incidence of brain cancers in young people in the USA, conclusively confirms that radiofrequency radiation is a category 1 human carcinogen. We cannot ignore this but must act quickly to reduce exposure to radiofrequency radiation from all sources to as low as reasonably achievable, especially for children.”
Elsevier Environmental Research
Commentary on the utility of the National Toxicology Program study on cell phone radiofrequency radiation data for assessing human health risks despite unfounded criticisms aimed at minimizing the findings of adverse health effects
Author links open overlay panel Ronald L.Melnick
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.09.010Get rights and content
NTP study on cell phone radiation shows the null hypothesis has been disproved.
Proliferative effects were observed in the heart (Schwann cells) and brain (glial cells).
Tumors of the same cell types have been reported in human studies of cell phone users.
DNA damage was increased in brains of exposed rats and mice.
The animal data are relevant and useful for assessment of human health risks.
The National Toxicology Program (NTP) conducted two-year studies of cell phone radiation in rats and mice exposed to CDMA- or GSM-modulated radiofrequency radiation (RFR) at exposure intensities in the brain of rats that were similar to or only slightly higher than potential, localized human exposures from cell phones held next to the head. …
… The expert peer-review panel clearly recognized the validity and biological significance of the adverse health effects produced in the NTP’s studies of cell phone RFR. The overall results from the NTP studies indicate that cell phone RFR is potentially carcinogenic to multiple organs of exposed people’.
3, Environmental Health Trust pdf. (https://ehtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/NTP_Myth_Fact.pdf)
From Myths and Facts About the National Toxicology Program Cell Phone Radiation Cancer Study Correcting the Misinformation
Overarching Myth #2: The weak and unusual study results prove the risk to humans is small and likely non-existent. Fact: When scientifically reviewed and statistically analysed, the findings of statistically significant increased cancers and pre-cancers in the exposed rats remain valid despite the gender and survival differences. Furthermore, the analysis is strengthened by the findings of other adverse effects from exposure such as lower birth rate and cardiac abnormalities.
Overarching Myth #3: Because we don’t fully understand the biology behind these results we can ignore them. Fact: The NTP study confirms the existence of a non-thermal effect. For almost every well-established carcinogen ever identified, from cigarettes to asbestos, the evidence of risk preceded our understanding of the mechanism by many years, if not decades.
Overarching Myth #4: Existing research invalidates the NTP findings of increased cancer and genotoxicity. Fact: The NTP study substantiates previous research findings from human and animal research indicating increased cancer risk and DNA impacts.
Overarching Myth #5: Experts overwhelmingly have discredited the study results and conclude it to be irrelevant. Fact: The majority of NIH scientific reviewers to the NTP dataset believe the findings are valid and that the radiation exposure is related to the cancer.
So these experts conclude:
1. Dr Miller, ”The National Toxicology Programme study is the largest and most well designed animal study ever done…. The findings were that two types of cancer occurred in excess, the very same cancers found in excess in the epidemiology studies of long term cell phone users.”
2. ‘… The expert peer-review panel clearly recognized the validity and biological significance of the adverse health effects produced in the NTP’s studies of cell phone RFR. The overall results from the NTP studies indicate that cell phone RFR is potentially carcinogenic to multiple organs of exposed people’.
3. The NTP study confirms the existence of a non-thermal effect. For almost every well established carcinogen ever identified, from cigarettes to asbestos, the evidence of risk preceded our understanding of the mechanism by many years, if not decades. The NTP study substantiates previous research findings from human and animal research indicating increased cancer risk and DNA impacts. The majority of NIH scientific reviewers to the NTP dataset believe the findings are valid and that the radiation exposure is related to the cancer.
It appears from the above that this paragraph on ‘cherry-picking and misrepresentation’ clearly misrepresents the NTP study. It also indicates Dr Grimes hasn’t reached very far up the tree for his own cherries
My very best wishes,