Sharing w/others – lessons learned

You may have recently seen media reports claiming that cell phone appear to have a protective effect against Alzheimer’s disease. 

In a posting made to the site “EMFacts”, a PhD candidate named Don studying the subject explains why this is actually not good news at all:

“In the National Geographic reporting on the Alzheimer’s study, researcher Sanchez-Ramos called the finding “a dramatic and counterintuitive effect” (beneficial / protective).

I am reminded of other “counterintuitive” findings by Pamela Sykes from Flinders University in South Australia and those of Ross Adey. In both cases they found an apparent protective effect from cell phone radiation (see extract below) and in both cases Motorola considered this as bad news and used its influence to block any replication studies.

Finding a protective effect means there is a biological interaction not related to heating which therefore discredits the exposure standard assurances that this is impossible (IEEE C95.1 and ICNIRP). 

That is very BAD NEWS for the cell phone industry. If there are non-thermal beneficial effects then what about those other possible non-thermal effects that are not so benign, such as an increased risk of brain tumors for humans?

Of course this won’t stop the spin doctors trying to change the Alzheimer’s study into a good news media blitz for the industry …

Here is a relevant excerpt from a book chapter still in the wings. Note that at the time the below took place Motorola’s resident “EMR strategist” Dr. Ken Joyner was also the expert radiation advisor to Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NH MRC), which controlled the funding and approval of research.

Never let a bit of conflict of interest get in the way of a good business deal…

The following is quoted from: “Spin in the Antipodes: Political and corporate involvement with cell phone research in Australia” (in Press):

“One of the research studies considered by the NH MRC’s EME Expert Committee was a study by Dr. Pamela Sykes … Her preliminary study findings, published in Radiation Research, November 2001, found that the exposed mice had fewer DNA changes than expected. Although this might suggest a beneficial or protective effect from the microwave exposure Sykes pointed out in her paper that some proven genotoxic agents can also express this same effect, suggesting that cell phone microwave exposure may be genotoxic

… The expert committee concluded that, as the study found less DNA breakages than what would normally be expected in non-exposed mice, there was no point in conducting further research in this area.

This conclusion, however, failed to address the issue of possible genotoxicity that was raised by Sykes … The committee wrote back, stating that while it “recognized the great potential significance of her results”, it considered them “somewhat counterintuitive”.

“The use of the word counterintuitive as a reason to reject research findings is of concern as it indicates that an assumption had been made that as Sykes’ findings did not fit with what would have been expected they did not need to be further investigated. It is expert decision making at a level of ‘intuition’ or ‘common sense’ and therefore outside the norms of scientific objectivity. It indicates that a dismissal of the importance of Sykes’ preliminary findings was made because it conflicted with the official stand of the Australian government (and industry).

A comparison can be made here with research conducted by Dr. Ross Adey … Overall, the two-year study showed a trend towards a reduced incidence of central nervous system (CNS) tumors in the exposed rats in comparison to unexposed controls, thus indicating a protective DNA repair effect from exposure … [T]he findings needed to be followed up because they indicated a possible non-thermal (low-intensity) effect … [which] cast doubt on the mobile phone industry’s assertion that athermal (low intensity) RF exposures were of no consequence, as there could be no interaction with biological tissue at levels that did not cause heating.

Adey’s request to Motorola for further funding to do a replication was refused. Motorola then confiscated all the essential equipment, including field generators and exposure chambers. Adey stated in a sworn affidavit this was done “to ensure that we could not pursue any further studies”.

Considering that a standard practice in science is to replicate of a study in order to establish a biological effect, it could be surmised that further research to explore possible biological effects from low intensity RF exposure did not suit Motorola’s interests. With both Sykes’ and Adey et al ‘s research, the unwillingness to attempt a replication of scientific findings of an effect (protective) between RF exposure and DNA suggests the findings were “counterintuitive” to strongly held beliefs that there can be no biological effects from RF exposures below the heating threshold.”

Adding to the conversation on the EMFacts.com site, Charles Claessens, member Verband Baubiologie, had the following to say about this study:

“They used a signal which was generated with a HP ESG D400A generator. The high frequency carrier wave was 918 MHz, but nowhere is it stated which pulse rate was used. And it is just the modulation of these low frequency pulse rates (with a lot of other signals in it) that do have the impact on people.

On I have placed modulations of 217 Hz and 100 Hz, made by a generator. When you listen to them, in their different wave forms, it is quite obvious, that they sound quite different from real recorded mobile phone signals, like a DECT phone or GSM or even UMTS. (Electrosensibles who listen to my recorded AUDIO modulations do get the same complaints as with the original elektrosmog sources.)

Learn more at this link.