[mobilfunk_newsletter] Cellphones and male infertility

0 views
Skip to first unread message

news....@googlemail.com

unread,
May 25, 2010, 2:08:32 AM5/25/10
to
 
Sent: Monday, May 24, 2010 4:09 PM
Subject: Cellphones and male infertility

Dear Dr. McBride,:
 
According to your biographical sketch, to which I presume you contributed,  "Her research interests include childhood and young adult cancer issues, non-ionizing radiation as a cause of cancer, and cancer registries."  With that focus, I am confused as to how it is  possible then for you to take the position that cell phones which emit non-ionizing radiation are safe for children and young adults.  Further, you actually assure concerned parents that there is nothing to worry about putting cell phone transmitters on schools (www.youtube.com/watch?V=LvYtSaVV-c).  Now, I understand that you have been supported in your research by the telecommunications industry (e.g. Interphone Study; the WHO "Epidemiological Study of Cellular Phones and Head and Neck Cancer, funded by Canadian Wireless and Telecommunications Association and CIHR), but to ignore evidence of danger that your independent colleagues are finding, some of which, in fact, was discovered decades ago by the US, UK, and Canadian governments for military purposes, does not speak well of your objectivity, your devotion to science, nor your inability to distance yourself from the telecommunication industry.
 
But I'm going to take a giant leap here.  I'm going to assume that you really have not kept up with the science; that perhaps you have been under the influence of people of questionable ability, and, as a consequence have been taking positions that an otherwise competent researcher could not, in good conscience, hold.  To that end, Dr. McBride, I will endeavor to bring you up to date.  I will introduce you to studies in which independent scientists from around the world show harm from non-ionizing radiation at levels far below those allowed under Safety Code 6 (which you also support), and at levels produced by cellphones and cell transmitters.
 
Each week I will be sending you (and copying others) studies, by topic, so that hopefully you will see that the children and young adults about whom you are so very concerned, are being endangered by radiation from the various wireless devices to which they are being exposed on an ever-increasing basis. It is my sincere intention to provide you with sound, independent, peer-reviewed studies showing  health effects including among others blood barrier leakage, DNA damage, neurological effects, and even reduced sperm motility.  
 
I ask that you, Dr. McBride, in return, read the studies and then tell me if you continue to believe that there is no evidence that non-thermal radiation at levels to which the public is being exposed causes harm, and why.
 
The first 5 follow and are by Dr. Ashok Agarwal, Professor, Lerner College of Medicine, Director, Center for Reproductive Mediciine; Director, Andrology Laboratory, Cleveland Clinic. His studies have shown direct correlations between cellphone usage and male infertility. In one study he discovered that a mere 60 minutes of exposure to GSM cellphone radiation is sufficient to show negative effects on sperm.
 

1. PDF File (agradoc250.pdf 388 Kb)
Deepinder, F, Makker, K, and Agarwal, A (2007):
Cell phone and infertility: Dissecting the relationship. Review Article.
RBM Online 15:266-70.

2. PDF File (agradoc239.pdf 174 Kb)
Agarwal, A, Deepinder, Rakesh, S, Ranga, G, Li, J (2008):
Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study.
Fertil Steril 89:124-128.

3. PDF File (agradoc301.pdf 156 Kb)
Agarwal A, Desai N, Makker K, Varghese A, Mouradi M, Sabanegh E, Sharma R (2009):
Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: An in vitro pilot study.
Fertil Steril 92(4): 1318-1325.

4. PDF File (agradoc295.pdf 877 Kb)
Makker, K, Varghese, A, Desai, N, Mouradi, R, Agarwal, A. (2009):
Cell phones: modern man’s nemesis? Review Article.
RBM Online 18: 148-157.

5. PDF File (agradoc342.pdf 334 Kb)
Desai, NR, Kesari, KK, Agarwal, A (2009):
Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation: oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on male reproductive system. Review Article.
Reprod Biol Endocr 7:114.   

 
I look forward to receiving your comments at your earliest convenience.
 
Sincerely,
Sharon Noble
818 Bexhill Place
Victoria, British Columbia
 
--------
 
 


 



--
Sie haben diese Nachricht erhalten, da Sie der Google Groups-Gruppe Mobilfunk-Newsletter - EMF-Omega-News beigetreten sind.
Wenn Sie Nachrichten in dieser Gruppe posten möchten, senden Sie eine E-Mail an mobilfunk_...@googlegroups.com.
Wenn Sie aus dieser Gruppe austreten möchten, senden Sie eine E-Mail an mobilfunk_newsle...@googlegroups.com.
Besuchen Sie die Gruppe unter http://groups.google.com/group/mobilfunk_newsletter?hl=de, um weitere Optionen zu erhalten.

Omega Group

unread,
May 25, 2010, 2:09:40 AM5/25/10
to Mobilfunk-Newsletter - EMF-Omega-News
Informant: Martin Weatherall

Omega Group

unread,
May 29, 2010, 1:26:51 AM5/29/10
to Mobilfunk-Newsletter - EMF-Omega-News
Dear Dr. McBride,

Thank you for your response to my email. You indicate that you would
not consider any peer-reviewed, published articles I send you but
rather would continue to "follow the science" through your regular
access to published, peer-reviewed articles. Would you please tell me
what that source is? In addition would you please explain your
established criteria for assessment of causation.?

I ask this because, despite many requests to Health Canada, I have not
been told why some studies which are published, peer-reviewed and
accepted by well-respected agencies, are not considered worthy by
either Health Canada or the members of the Royal Panel of which you
are one. The reply which I always am given, "weight of evidence", does
not satisfy, especially when it is explained that this means there are
more studies that show no effect than there are studies that show
adverse effects, even if the majority of the studies showing no effect
are industry-funded. It doesn't make sense to me that good, peer-
reviewed studies showing harmful effects can be ignored simply
because they are outnumbered.

And to make my effort to understand Health Canada's and your stance
even more frustrating, this definition of "weight of evidence" is
incorrect, as reputable researchers make clear. The correct use of
weight of evidence is NOT putting the studies showing adverse health
effects up against the studies showing no health effects.

But rather than debating "weight of evidence" I would prefer another
approach, one which considers the "weight of adverse effects." Dr.
McBride, please explain to me where my logic fails in the following.

When something like cell phone radiation is tested following
appropriate protocol, there should be no adverse effects if the thing
being tested is safe. If 30% of these studies indicate adverse
effects, then 30 times more harmful effects were seen than were
expected. In fact, where studies regarding electromagnetic radiation
are independently funded (e.g. no affiliation with industry) 70% of
studies show adverse effects. Would this not indicate that there are
70 times more adverse effects than expected?

No one in Health Canada or the Royal Panel, or in WHO for that matter,
has denied that there are studies showing adverse effects to cell
phones and cell transmitters. Isn't the fact that there is "weight of
adverse effects" significant? Don't these studies deserve to be
considered when establishing standards and when allowing the public to
be exposed to potentially life-threatening devices? Wouldn't it be
more accurate, more scientifically correct to at least warn people of
the potential of hazards, rather than telling them there is no danger
because of some faulty "weight of evidence" argument some have chosen
to espouse?

Dr. McBride, because of your stance as an expert who advises the
public that cell phones and cell transmitters are safe, you have a
responsibility to explain how you reached this conclusion. I sincerely
hope you will.

Sincerely,
Sharon Noble


Informant: Martin Weatherall
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages