George Carlo - Illusion and Escape - the American Trial Lawyer 2008

8/8/2019 George Carlo - Illusion and Escape - the American Trial Lawyer 2008

1/13


2/13

BY DR.GE

he most skilled magician an descape artist of all time wouldITikely be in aw e of the deft illu-sions that have lured the globalpublic into buying four billionlife-threatening devices calledcell phones. He might even givegrudging kudos to such a slightof hand accomplished under th enoses of a legal system claimingto protect th e rights of victims -while th e perpetrators escapeall accountability. Just thinkwhat Houdini could have donewith a trillion dollar industrybehind him! It is no t an illusion,bu t a reality that threatens theessence of our being, th e futuresof our childrpn, an* th e fragile

THE CELL PHON E DISEASE QUAGMIAR E WE BEING DECEIVEIn themanyymrs that I ha@ k n qfomtk pbEic, my secretrn&hsds haw k e n steadily shielded by the strict integrity af myassistan. Bur then,m ar as knoy b; am the only p~~"@rmerhoever pI&g&d hk assismrttr;t@ ecmc~ onor and alie&nce under anat~rr'alath-"..... Hwry Houdiniecological balance of a planetalready under siege. It is poten-tially more serious than globalwarming - nd already claiminglives.

So, you say: "If this technolo-gy is so dan gero us, why isn't itportrayed t hat way in the news?Do we not have scientists whostudy this to make the technologysafe? Do we not have regulationsand govern ment policing to keep

us safe? Do we not have the newsmedia to keep us informed? Anddo we not have lawyers who willadvocate on o ur behalf to ensurethat w e are treated fairly?"

Yes, we have all of thoseprotections. But they are notworking to protect us.Catastrophic trouble lies aheadif corrective steps are not takento stem the tide of dang er ofwireless technology.


3/13


4/13

CELL PHONES CAUSE DISEASEFACTHow Cell Phones Penetrate

Cell phones exposeyou to near fieldradiation differently

5 year-old

Adult

When cell phones were first proposed fo r consumer use in 1983, th e fledgingwireless communications industry convinced th e Food an d Drug Administratio(FDA) that pre-market safety testing was no t necessary. The rationale: cellphones were like little microwave ovens that operated at power levels to o lowto cause heating. Thus, because cell phones could not be used to cook food,they were deemed safe by the FDA. This core mistake in1983 became th e foundation fo r a quarter-century public health threat that increases daily.'

By 1993, there were 1 5 million Americans using cell phone- 5 million people worldwide.A Florida lawsuit raised publicquestions about cell phonescausing brain cancer, whichcaught th e industry, th e FDA,an d the media by surprise. Thisprompted congressional hearinthat led to a deal between th ecell phone industry an d th e FDAto research th e issue. The sup-posed goal would be to fill datagaps caused by the 1 9 8 3 deci-sion to forego pre-market safet

Illustration 1. The degree ofpenetration of the near-fieldplume from a cell phoneantenna (illustrated in image atleft) into the skull varies, basedon a number of factors includ-ing frequency,wave-length,field-intensity and a person'sage. The MR I models aboveshow radio frequency radia-tion field penetrations by vary-ing age while other variablesare held constant.

testing. Now, fifteen years latermore than 280 millionAmericans will use cell phone asome point in 2008, with morethan four billion users world-wide. The cell phone ha s becom

ubiquitous among all demographic groups - ncluding young children.A cell phone held close to th e head (a s most are) allows electro-magneticradiation to penetrate deep into brain tissue. This is where th e problem begins(See illustration I) Indeed, th e primary concern 1 0 years ago was th e penetrating near-field plume - he area within six inches of th e antenna. However, thaconcern is now one of many, as ambient radiation has become a very seriousproblem fo r those who ar e electro-sensitive o r otherwise symptomatic withconditions involving cell membrane sympathetic stress.

Every cell phone must be connected to a base-station antenna to be func-tional. Each connection results in a biologically active electromagnetic direc-tional wave, which combines with th e waves from other cell phones and wire-less devices to form a mesh of information carrying radio waves (ICRW) fromwhich there is little escape fo r most people. The mechanism of harm perpetrated by ICRWs is biological and therefore carries no threshold for effects - nother words, there is no absolutely safe level of exposure. All cells, tissues an dorgans in th e range of exposure ar e therefore triggered, an d th e differencebetween people who develop symptoms and those who do no t is related tofactors such as age, state of wellness, gender an d genetics.


5/13


6/13

health and safety, o r scientific truth. To achieve that end, theindustry had found it necessary to alter scientific facts to suitthe desired outcome.(See Side-Bar 7: Data Manipulation: Thumbs on theScales of Science)The science is complex, which helps th e industry pro-- moting safety of its products to the layperson. Professionalwordsmiths retained by th e industry split hairs over compli-cated scientific concepts, including differences between ther-mal and non-thermal mechanism s; biological effects andhealth effects; replication of studies and corroborativeresearch; and weight of scientific evidence versus proper sci-entific judgment. Lay journalists cannot hope to investigatesuch complicated nuances, and public reports of harm are sowatered down that readers, listeners and viewers are leftwith the impression that "the issue is being looked into andso far, there are no problems." Not surprisingly, consumerscontinue to buy.The industry's most obvious motivation is to maintainsales, as companies work on narrow profit margins. A on eor two percent reduction in market share can devastate th ebottom line of even the largest players. Raising the specterof health risks would obviously be bad for business.Moreover, cell phone leaders must now confront anoth-er challenge: the insurance carriers' decision to excludehealth risk claims from product liability policies marketed tothe wireless industry. Beginning in 2002, major insurersexcluded health risks from cell phone usage as a coveredloss under policies sold to the industry. (See Side-Bar8:Chronology of Key Cell Phone Personal Injury Litigation).

Insurers are well aw are of poten tial losses associated withongoing product liability and personal injury litigationagainst the cell phone indus try, as well as claims of injuredworkers. (See Side-Bar 9: Workers' Compensation Cases;Side-Bar 10: Key Legal Precedents)BLURRING THE WIRELESS LINES

Wireless companies want to avoid exposure as targe t defedants, preferring to blend into the burgeo ning informationtechnology and in ternet in dustrie s. In 1 99 9, the main cellphone industry trade association, the Cellular TelephoneIndustry Association, changed its nam e to the CellularTelephone and lnternet Association, allowing companiessuch as Microsoft and Apple to join. In 20 05, mobile tele-phone entities moved into the entertainment industry -exemplified by the joint venture between Sprint and theDisney Corporation th at brought Disney into the ranks ofwireless signal carriers. Cafe companies such as Starbuck sCoffee and Pan era Bread have formed wireless lnterne tpartnerships with indu stry leaders. These m oves have dilued the potential liability for cell phone companies. Theseactions were intended to reduce the potential exposure ofcell phone com panies, and have spaw ned an institutionalarro gan ce reflecting an app arent belief in their own invincbility. However, it remains to be seen whether Microsoft,Apple, Disney, Starbucks and o the rs will agree to ca rry theburden of the indus try's self-inflicted liability.Another part of the corporate strategy encouragesmanipulation of the consum er market, such as the effort

Wright iouthwesternBell Mobile Systenndu--.,1 Employee of Sile phone carrier who devel-I 7 41$ oped brain tun,,. tvho was given unlimited cellphone minutes as perk of her job2 The case settled as a confidential employer-employee resolution1996

Newman v. Motorola, Inc.1 Neurologist with brain :-.-nfiled suit in Maryland2 Case dismissed due to lac1-:ientific evidence to supporbdusation $p;

;anev.Motorola, Inc.1 Motorola cell phone research andopment employee developed brainafter testing early cell phone prototypes2 Case filed in Illinois and settled as a con-fidential employer-employeeresolution

~sse. Mot(---la,nc. et al..I uass Action filed in lllinois on theory that industry suepidemiological studies of phone users based on phonewere meant to withhold health risk data from public2 Certified as a nation-wide Class Action in 1999, withnotice in the Wall Street Journal and other national new3 Dismissed upon mutual co---7t of opposing counsel


7/13

to convince parents and teachers that WiFi wireless Internet to develop proper scientific data on safety and efficacy.access at school will improves education- with no evidence These companies prey on ill or poorly informed consumersto support the claim. Ironically, the pathology associated who can be swayed by unscientific and improbable personawith ICRW is consistent with learning deficiencies linked testimonials and other wild claims about mirac le cures. Theto WiFi itself. Cell phones as personal safety devices also fraud perpetrated by these 'helpful' companies is as damag-remain a selling point, despite the absence of data proving ing to public health as the ruse promoted by the wirelessthat any personal security provided by cell phones out- industry itself.weighs the associated health risks.BOGUS REMEDIES EXACERBATETHEDANGERManipulating science fo r profit is not new to the wirelessindustry. A gamut of marketing companies and other"grass roots" participatory businessessell numerousproducts, including pendants and stick-on tabs, withunsupportable claims to protect consumers against thedangers of cell phones and other electro-magnetic radiationemitting devices.The science of prevention and therapeutic interventionregarding cell phone-related diseases is still in its infancy,bu t one aspect i s abundantly clear: no panacea yet exists toaddress the problem. Recent studies indicate that desperate Illustration 3. lntracellular build-up of free radicals, includingconsumers are being deceived to purchase bogus protective heavy metals, are a result of cell membrane sympatheticdevices that not only give a false sense of security, bu t also respong to Information Carrying Radio Waves. The smallerencourage improper use of sham products that exacerbate spots in this photo are micronuclei which are indicative of dis-symptoms and may lead to serious disease relapses. rupted DNA repair, a form of genetic damage consistent with

Because these businesses are person to person, they the development of brain tumors.escape regulation by the Federal Trade Commission or otheragencies. Consequently, the companies have no incentive


8/13

SIDE- I 'R 1KEY CELL PHONE-DISEASE CAUSATION REFERENCES

Carb GL, Schrarn MJ.Cell %oms. Invkibk Harden L, Carlkrg M, Mild, KH. 2006Hazards in the Wireless A%. Carrc4Iand Craff control Study of the Asmiation BetwePhHshers, Jmulry 2801; second w i n g , b e f Celular and CordlessTelephoneFebruary 2802: Engli. French-Germ, Malignant Brain Tumors Dmenosed Durisls

Carla GL, Thibodeau P. Wnekss PhonesmdHelkh II. State of thc Science. Kluwer AcPress,October 2000.Carla GL, S q k y M, k r m n , T P.Wireless P h m nd Hadth. ScicisntifkPmgfggd,K h ww Acdmic Press, Ay m , 9%Carlo GL, SteffensRS. Scimifie P r o g l r mWireks Fbws and Rain Cancer:Cwrm Stateof the Science. MdcapeGeneralkdeEbicm.July31,2000.Friedmw J, Kraus S, H w p t m Y,Sckiff Y,Seger R, "Mechanism of Shwt-tarn EREActivation by Elenr-mtic Fiddr at MabikePhone Freqwncin", BiwhanJ 2007; 405: 559-568Ga& AG., 9-h P. 2005. M&le Phone Users:Another Htgh Health Risk Group. Journal of

Gand'hi AG. May-August 2005. h e t i c DamageinMo&k Phone Users: Some PrefimiwryFidFngs. ImcEian Journal of Human Genetics.11 2):s-104Hsflberg O., Jahansso,0. FM EmadcastingExpoaureTime and Malignant Melanomatncicknce. &kttxnmgr)~fiedqy and k&im,Vodwm 24, taue 1 January 2005, pages 1-8bibergO., J ~ ~ S B O C ~.MobileHendsaOutput Power and k d t h E k cWqgyand iWdick,V d m 3, Issue3 .Deeembw2004, pages 229 - 239krdsl LH; M dKH, Sandstran, M,Car-M, kWq&t A, P&kn A. 2003. VesribukwSch-, Timitus imdCelkdor Telzphms.N c w ~ p & m b w 2124-129krdzll LH, Mild, KH,Cwbwg,MMarch. 2004.Cefiuln andCm&srsUse and t k Assmiation wkh EminT u m m inDifferent Age Gccslps.Archive ofEnvirmmtd k a k h 593):432.

Ha L, M iKH, Car.7Lber.gM, and SoderqvistF. %BOQ T w isk Assockatedwith Use ofCeliular Tefqhms or Cordless Desktop

s.Wtdh u r d of Surg. Oncology474,3477-7819-4-74Hayes DL, PJ, Reynolds DW, Estes M,Giff'ih JL , 3effmrRS Carb GL, Findlay FK ,J-ohmmCM. tn tekmce with CardiacP s r e w ~y CdbIar Teiephones. NewEngtand b n d f Mediiine, 1997;336@1):1473-1479.Jdohansson0..Elcctrohypenensitivity:State-athe-Art& a Functional Impairment.E k t m m k WcgyondMediehe,Vdume25, Issue 4 December 2006, pages 245- 58Johnasson 0. (2004).Screen DermaEkctrahvpersensitivitity: reliminaryObservationsonHman S k i . InElectmagmeticsEnvironments and Health inBuildings. Eds Derek J. Crooae, DerekCkmwnts-Croom.Taylar& Francis.Kundi M,MIW K, Hardell L, Mattsson M. 2004Mobk Telephones and Cancer -A Review ofEpidemiological Evidence. Journal of Toxicologyand Envirmrnmtd Health, Part B. 7:351-384Kundi, M. 2004.MobiC Phone Use and CWupaional a d EnvironmentalMedicine.61:560-570.W k a T, Carb GL.Wmkss Radiation in theEt'bbgy arrd Trea tmt of Autism: ClinicalC%servations pnd Mechanisms.Jaurnal o"-"-AwtrgRaskan Cd@ of NutritionalEnvhmmtd Medicine.Nwmber 2087Mafkolra E,Hillert L, Malmgren L, Persson B,&Iy~lr. 2005. Microwaves from GSM MobileTetephanes Affect 538BP1 and g-H2AX Foci inHuman Lymphocytes f r m Hypersensitivl 1Heakhy Persons. Envirm Health kspect1132172-1177Msrhevidl M, Fallemn D, Kesar A, Bwbul A,Karmfein R, Jwby E Avivi L. 2003. ExposunL-,Cathrtg MkdKK case- of ~ u m a n eripherd8.w~ymphocyteso

Control Pudy on C e h k and Cw&s Ekctromagnetic F i ssociated with CTmmshe R i or Amwtkk r a phones Leads to ~komosoms~nstability.or20 @wmd 90Ba- Bjoehrarn~netics 4:82-90Perssen 3 Salford LC, Brun A: Blood-brr:-k h f l , ,Carbra, M KH. 2004 of hn i , W m e a H i ~n at^ ~~~d toCefhhr Tekpkorws a d Brain Tumor Risk in ~ h ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ielde Used in WirelessU r h and Rurd Areas. Oceup. Erwbn.M. c -M~&~~.wiWlessktworb:62:W-394. 455-MI. 1997.

L7 Carkg Ma KH. Mford LG, &runBE,Ekhat-dt JL, Malrragren K,Analpis of Two Case-Control S td es on Use of knu#l& t2m) Mrve hmage inCeYLJw& CordkssTelephones and the Rik kmlp& AfterExpowe to Micrmwsfor Marinant BramTumwrs l3iagws-dm1997-2003. I n t m i a w l Arcfilms of frol -"" ' oMe P h EnvirmmmtalCkeupsltional and Environmerwal Health. Hei .... ,&ctiws 1I -31 883.

FACTTHE INDUSTRY HASESCAPEDACCOUNTABILITYThus far, the cell pho ne industry hasavoided accountability for th e health anenvironmental damages caused by theirdevices and supportive infrastructure,leaving the injured without recourse.The system is not working.Because the FDA gran ted t he industa variance on the requirement for pre-market safety, it is unlikely that th at theFDA will take fu rthe r step s at pro tectingthe public. Moreover, with respect toradiation-em itting devices, the FDA hasvery narrow regulatory authority: theycan require pre-market testing; they canpursue post-market surveillance; they caban products if post-market surveillanceidentifies problems. With u pwards of 28million Americans using cell phones, acell phone ban is politically infeasible.Consum ers canno t look to the FDA,which is not directly involved in the safety regulation of cell phones at all.What a bou t the FederalComm unications Commission (FCC)?The w ireless industry contro ls it. Therevolving do or between the FCC and thwireless industry has not stopped. Indeeboth industry and th e FCC cite the over


9/13

T H E CAUSALMECHANISM

I cI&-alkwvl@gmhn b w r ~ k P k r-5.s.qcfi Rr~sBFHdr lu .M i f i : ~ l k l W ~rWr;r etCnlwK ?4FW,-llustration 4. Intraceltular build-upof free radicals triggers pre-mature cellular apoptosis.This leads to tissue dysfunctionas illus-trated in this graphic. Blood Brain Barrier leakage occurs within10minutes of exposure to Information Carrying Radio Waves.

lap between the two as a major reason for thetremendous growth and "success" of the wirelesscommunications. They look after each other's back.In a recent cell phone-brain cancer suit in the Districtof Columbia Superior Court, the FCC entered anamicus brief in support of the cell phone industry'smotion for dismissal. The FCC had never beforebecome involved in state or federal court proceed-ings regarding cell phone dangers; the amicus briefsignals a new level of bold interference by the federalagency to advance the agenda of an industry it issuppose to oversee. Further, the cell phone industry

routinely misrepresents as safety standards" theemission guidelines for wireless radiation promulgat-ed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 andadministered through the FCC. The FCC has no safe-ty authority. Thus, no safety standards exist to pro-tect consumers from the dangers of cell phones andother wireless devices.To date, the cell phone industry has responded tolitigation by raising the shield of federal preemption,preventing fact finders from hearing scientific andmedical causation testimony based on data generat-ed after 1999.


10/13

SIDE-BAR "act PHONE-RELATED ISEASE- wrlEARLYWARNING SYMPTQMSM m han 1,000 peew = cw M d,published studiisf m he k e i s for establishing the link between rnobik

use and a variety of M t h pmblm%1 Cell Phoru-Related D'ieases:

* brain, eye andwlhary gland

ising efficacyof necessary

E " Warning S y m p t m :fatigue, shortnessof breath and lethargydifficulty sleeping including restless leg and otherfluisance syndromes*difficulty keeping fsm md attentiond e f i ~ i ~

a short term memory lapses# daydreaming and staring off into space'-r izziness and tingling in extremitiesr loss of appetite or persistent diarrheau unusually severe allergic r~~

' $ intoleranceto alcohol'?i extreme sensitivity to sunlight and noise,+ mpotence and sexual dysfunction'@ ineffectiveness of prescription remediez

1 ),'. r. ,"IN the ABSENCE of soundFEDERAL GUIDELINESor vigilant regulation,LITIGATION is the ONLYoption to COMPENSATE

victims and deter thecontinued disingenuous andDANGEROUS behaviorof the WIRELESS industry."

FACTLEGAL AND LEGISLATIVEACTIONS ARE NECESSARYIn matters of public policy involving consumer pro-tection, litigation and legislation has sometimeslagged in addressing rapid technological advances.Such is the case with wireless technology. To date,remedial options short of these "last resorts" havefailed.For half a century, questions have been raisedabout the safety of wireless devices, and fo r thepast fifteen years, the debate has occurred in public.The passage of time has only exacerbated th epublic health threat, as exposure to dangerouselectromagnetic fields has dramatically increasedthe risks with no corresponding mitigation. Instead,many consumers now face mounting medical bills,lost wages, pain and suffering attributable to wirelesstechnology.In the absence of sound federal guidelines o r vig-ilant regulation, litigation is the only option to com-pensate victims and deter th e continued disingenu-ous and dangerous behavior of th e wireless industry.Medical science supports personal injury litiga-tion fo r cell phone-related brain tumors, parotidgland tumors, acoustic neuroma, eye cancer,neurological disorders, electro-hypersensitivityand autism.Product liability actions will achieve severalgoals: compensate injured consumers; stop detri-mental industry practices that victimize consumers;and pu t an end to fraudulent promotion of productsthat do not protect consumers from various typesof electromagnetic radiation.


11/13

In addition to compensating victims, there isan urgent need to apply political pressure to th elegislative and executive branches of government,which will result in long term solutions that ensurethe health and safety of future generations.Laws should be enacted to place health warn-ings on cell phones and wireless devices, as well aswarning signs in public spaces that carry WiFi andother wireless signals.

Th e TelecommunicationsAct must be amend-ed to include victims' compensation provisions;incentives for the development and commercial-ization of technologies to promote users fromharmful electromagnetic radiation; and civil rightsprovisions to promote environmental and healthrisk protection for homeowners in communitieswhere cell phone base stations and other wirelessinfrastructure are constructed.Harry Houdini did no t tell his secrets for fearthat th e magical illusion would be gone. Restassured, Harry.. . here ar e no illusions here.. ..

SIDE-BAR 4

Jrcpsn eencralh imt ian under18years of ageRussia EmeralBmitatkm,nouseunder 12 ylewsI ,B- No h g alls; no use underI 6 years of age I

government agency.

es which featuredcall from a fellmwhok W s J.G. W y . During the call, Mt kc waamrired rni&my>art$ that he hsdmwy for the U.S. SsirztOW ofSM. eM m tom. WBS na t abbe to take he call,the infcwwth ta us in a letter.

We mehrd his 17-pagelmer two days lear, ut regretfully Ino^ read it until dns i r s af Ikxemk. After mading the firstpage, I attemptedtocd Mr. W y n he g h . he phonenumber he gare in the d ' i n e d . As I continued

to read the letter, I was y its contents,page afterme.We t M o reach way.s at our diqmsal: the lettern closed aweek earli-tk,Washington,where the

ther family in Seattle,as we attempd to ' i d n the tekpbmb k . later gzve h e etter &Ihe Minutes news rmga-un&~deto find Mr. W y . later pabedA K News reparmW Wake- whowas fist a& to find Mr. k d y , but indeadwas tablie to confirmthe vWlity of ztre conmts through interviewswitha number of retiredm l wWhat &d $re J.G. B r a etw say?The mitltary es tab( i shmt had h n tudying radiothe late ix?museofamong

persondl in the ~ J c e s .* The torp-secretheakh effectsmearc)l fmlved commercialm - m m ncludhjjmany of themain pl

ate 1980s,with so4utl.m toand readied for Implemta-ca mpwts in 1992,

tdirtgs be re-stated soasnM to


12/13

SIDE-BAR 6THE CELL PHONE INDUSTRY PLAYBOOK:CONTROLLING ILLUSIONThe mobile telephone industry has been successful inmanipulating scientific data, public opinion and publicinformation to protect their interests, promote th e unbri-dled sale of their technologies and create the illusion ofsafety - ll to the detriment of pubrii health.

QHere is how they do it.Public relations "hit squads'hare permanently in place intrade associations and corporate offices to monitor scien-tific, medical and consumer information fo r consistencywith industry i n t m s .When "problems" are identifkd, th e public impact ofdetrimental information is altered first through publicstatements and written press &ass.Th e media ar e 'managed' by Eweraging advertising do]-larsSecond level 'management' is a c h i v d through controlof scientific research an61scientific organizational chan-neb.Key watch words that signal industry manipulation:o Expert pawl reports say.. ...

o Third party opinions are....o The 'weight of scientific ev*nce7 indicates.....o The studies need to be 'replicated' before.....o The 'safety guidelines' are being meto More research is needed before.. ...o k i m t i s t r around th e world agree that .....Industry i n s t i t u t i o ~ l ollaboratws:o The Wodd Wealth Organizationo The American National Standards Instituteo The IEEE - nstitute fo r Electronics and ElectricalEngineerso The International C ~ m m i s d o n n Non-IonizingRadbtion Protectiono The American C a m M i yo Th e B i a k c t r o ~ n e t b c %i e t y - EMSo The Federal Cornmunicat'wns Commissiono Th e Food and Drug AdministrationIndustry consulrants who publicly support industrypositions:o Dr. William Balky - Exponent Consultantso Dr. Linda Erdreich - Exponent C~nsul tantso Dr. John MwMer- University of Wisconsino Dr. Mickwl Repachioli - University of Rome (Italy)o Dr.Bernard Veyret - University of Bourdeax (France)o Dr. Michael Thun - American Cancer Societyo Dr. Joseph Roti Roti -Washington University (St. Louis)o Dr. John Boice - nternatimal Epkkmidogy Instituteo Dr. h d o Vmchia - nternational Committee on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection

Studies funded by th e mobile phone industry are more thansix times more likely to find "n o problem" than studies fundedby independent sources. This difference is statisticallysignifi-cant - uggesting the occurrence is no t by chance. The following is an example.In 1995, a young epidemiology student was working as anassistant to a senior scientist when their organization was contracted by an independent group to conduct a case-controlstudy of brain tumors and cell phone use. When the lead investigator passed away before the study was completed, the workcontinued with th e student and was completed in the fall of1998. Th e results were peer-reviewed and the report submitteI in compliance with th e research contract revealed a statisticallsignificant doubling in risk of rare neuro-epithelial brain tumoamong cell phone users.Between 1999 and 2000, the student forged a relationshipwith a cell phone industry epidemiologist who had been hiredto assist in 'peer review' of studies prior to publication.In late 2000, a paper describing the case-control study wassubmitted to the prestigious Journal of the American MedicalAssociation (JAMA). In that paper, three cases of cancer thathad been part of the previous analyses had been eliminated.That change in the number of cancer cases included in thestudy - breach of th e protocols that had been in place sincethe study began in 1995 -- eliminated the statistical significancof th e link between brain tumors and cell phones.In the original peer-reviewed report, he also detailed a sta-tistically significant correlation between the side of th e headwhere tumors were located and the side of the head wherepeople reported using their cell phones. Another study fromSweden that same year showed a similar significant riskincrease with ipsilateral phone use. Th e new finding was verydamaging to the mobile phone industry, especially since therewas another corroborative study.With the three cases of cancer eliminated th e statisticallysignificant correlation between the side of th e head where thephone was used and the side of the head where th e tumor waslocated also conveniently disappeared. The peer-reviewers atJAMA had no way of knowing about the data manipulation.In the end, manipulated data were published in a highlyreputable peer-reviewed journal. The industry was able to usethe paper as a public relations tool. Today, th e paper remainsprominent in the data package the industry uses advance itsposition that cell phones pose no health risk.

SIDE-BAR 7DATA MANIPULATION: THUMBS ON THESCALES OF SCIENCE


13/13

SIDE-BAR 8WORKERSTOMPENSATION CASES IYEAR COMMENTS

~ a l l ~ o r n l ~relllale er i lp~uyrr I ~rl~~~mmunicationsompanywho tested cellphones8 hours per day in closed environmentBrain tumor within three years after began workLevels of ICRW exposureseveral times higher than FCC guidelinesEvidentiary hearing where scientificstudy findingspost-2000werepresentedSettlement agreement reached for $180,000

2006 California Male employeewho used cell phones in his job* Brain tumor within six years after began using phoneSame science presented as in evidentiary hearing abovePatient deceasedUndisclosed amount of settlement with survivingfamily member

2007 Alagka Maintenanceworker contracted to do repairs on a tower facilityhe expectedwas not operating during the work periodDeveloped severe cognitive and neurological damage and perma-nently disabledExposures to R F were far above the FCC guidelinesAT&T appealed decision and the award was upheld by the AlaskaI I l~u~rerneourt

SIDE-BAR 9KEY LEGAL CITATIONSAND PRECEDENTS

CASE PRECEDENTS

Reference Assistance:Jeff Silva,WashingtonBureau Chief, RadioCommunicationsRepo

Cellular PhoneTask Force v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82 (2ndCir.

E M R Network ".FCC, 364 U.S. App. D.C.20,22-25,391F. 3d 269,271-74 (2004)

In reWirelessTel. Radio Frequency Emission Prods. Liab.Litig., 216 F Supp. 2d 474 (D. Md. 2002); In reWiretessTel. Radio Frequency Emission Prods. Liab. Litig., 248 FSupp. 2d 452 (D. Md. 2003), rev'd, Pinney v. Nokia, Inc.,402 F. 3d 430 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, Nokia, Inc. v.Naquin, 546U.S. 998 (2005);In reWirelessTel. RadioFrequency Emission Prods. Lib. Litig., 327 F. Supp. 2d554 (D. Md. 2004)

Addressed thermal versus non-thermaleffects from RF emissionsPlaintiff's loss expanded subject matter jurisdiction of the FCC to inchealth effects in those who are electro-sensitive and hypersensitiveDecision used to validate the process whereby the FCC establishes emstandardsbased on input from the American National Standards Institand the IEEE:- Challenged FCC process of issuing permits for infrastructure expansiwithout complyingwith EIS provisions of the National EnvironmentalAct.Plaintiff's loss established that the FCC proceduresare "functionally"compliant with NEPARe-enforced the FCC position on R F emissions by establishingpresumthat FCC has "occupied the fieldnof RF emissions under two statutes:and the Federal CommunicationAct.Series of decisions addressing the issues of pre-emption regarding thFCC's authority over R F emissionsDistinguisheddifferences between personal injury claims and economclaims

Documents

George Carlo - Illusion and Escape - the American Trial Lawyer 2008