Mobile communications and health

1. Mobile communications and health Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk (WBF) expert forum, Austria Norbert Vana Vienna University of Technology Vienna, 20 September 2012, original version in german

2. Background • The Scientific Advisory Board of Telecommunication (Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk, WBF) was established in February 2004 by Austrian scientists wanting to hold objective public debates on the possible impact of mobile communications on human health. • The WBF is the scientific advisory board of the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology. • The WBF is made up of scientists from various medical and technical fields who are involved in applying an interdisciplinary approach to dealing with this issue. Website: http://www.wbf.or.at/

3. Tasks of the WBF • Independent panel of experts that elects its own members • Informs the public about current scientific knowledge of mobile communications and health, and advises and supports political decision-makers by providing independent expert information • Collects, examines and analyses scientific studies and other research work published in recognised specialist media on the effects of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on human organisms

4. Drafting statements • Examining published studies to ensure they fulfil minimum scientific quality standards • Discussing qualified works in annual expert forums involving external experts from the fields in question • Performing further evaluation of works that have been or are the subject of public discussions • Summarising the content of topics to be discussed and to undergo scientific assessment in the expert forums

5. Annual expert forums • Members of the WBF and external experts draft statements • In-depth analysis and discussion of the selected works from the point of view of different fields • Overall assessment is carried out on the basis of a general overview of all relevant studies, not of individual studies or their results • Joint statement issued by the experts as a specific approved decision

6. Quality criteria applied to scientific studies • The studies must be published in scientific journals following a peer review • Does the investigation in question prove that the high-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by mobile communications have an impact on human health? • Minimum quality standards apply for the following areas: • Dosimetry • Statistical significance • Replication of the study’s results • Causality • Adverse effects (negative impact) • Ecological validity

7. Quality criteria applied to scientific studies • Dosimetry • Information on the relevant exposure parameters such as frequency range, wave form, duration of exposure, SAR, field strength and mean value • Traceability of the study using the description in the protocol • Information about the measuring devices used • Statistical significance • Sufficient guarantee of generating results compared to simply speculating on a result by chance • Information on the statistical procedure used and standard statistical criteria (e.g. confidence interval, the p- value) • Incorporating the power of the study e.g. the number of occurrences

8. Quality criteria applied to scientific studies • Replication of the study’s results Replicated results are essentially desirable but are not provided in many studies on the impact of mobile communications fields • The objective and protocol must basically remain the same but improvements are possible • Sufficient documentation to make it possible to reproduce the study in another laboratory • Causality Is it possible to definitely exclude other variables as the cause of the identified connection? • Documentation on the test and control group • Blinding information on exposure and assessment • Selection mechanisms • Disruptions (confounders)

9. Quality criteria applied to scientific studies • Adverse effects (negative impact) Does the detected effect have an impact on human health? • Is there any proven disturbance to organ functions ? • Recovery after the exposure stops? • Any detriment of the descendants? • Ecological validity Can the study environment be adequately transferred to real exposure conditions? • Documenting the assessment to enable transparent, reproducible (i.e. reasonable and logically justifiable) evaluations of the study is crucial

10. Final Evaluation • No decisions can yet be made on the basis of individual studies: all studies performed in the various fields must be taken into consideration in order to characterise the risks • Studies which do not match the quality criteria were eliminated with justification • In-depth discussions will be held on the following aspects: • Consistency of the findings • Description of any uncertainties • Description of possible variables • Conclusive risk assessment is no longer solely a scientific matter: since political evaluations are involved here, decisions must be made about the guiding principles of any assessment

11. Scientific Members of the WBF • Univ.-Prof. DI Dr. Norbert Vana (physics) WBF chairman, Vienna University of Technology, Institute of Atomic and Subatomic Physics • Univ.-Prof. Dr. Christian Wolf (internal medicine, occupational medicine) WBF vice-chairman, University Hospital for Internal Medicine II, Vienna Medical University • Univ.-Prof. DDr. Alfred Barth (occupational and organisational psychology) Institute for Occupational and Organisational Psychology at the Health and Life Sciences University study centre in Linz (Institut für Arbeits- and Organisationspsychologie, UMIT-Studienzentrum Linz) • Univ.-Prof. Dr. Gerald Haidinger (social medicine, epidemiology) Epidemiology department, Centre for Public Health, Vienna Medical University Physical principles Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk Biological effects

12. Scientific Members of the WBF • Dr. Doris Moser (clinical and health psychology) University Hospital for Neurology, Vienna Medical University • DI Dr. Georg Neubauer (electrical engineering) Safety & Security division, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology • Univ.-Prof. DI Dr Karl-Peter Pfeiffer (biostatistics, health economics) • Department for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Health Economics, Innsbruck Medical University; FH Joanneum • Prim. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Reinhart Waneck (radiology) • Chairman of the Austrian Association of Senior Hospital Physicians, OSR (Oberster Sanitätsrat, Supreme Health Council) representative within the WBF • Univ.-Prof. DDr. Josef Zeitlhofer (neurology) University Hospital for Neurology, Vienna Medical University Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

13. Representatives from public institutions (no voting rights) • DI Peter Reindl Austrian Regulatory Authority for Broadcasting and Telecommunications (Rundfunk and Telekom Regulierungs-GmbH) • MinRDr. Christian Singer Department PT 2 Telecommunications Law, Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology • DI Dr. Martin Renhardt Department III/3 (Department of Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices), Medical Devices and Radiation Hygiene, Federal Ministry of Health Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

14. External scientific experts • Ass.-Prof. Priv.-Doz. Dr.med. Rupert Lanzenberger (neuroscience) Brain researcher and expert in the molecular and functional imaging of the brain, Vienna Medical University • Prim. Univ. Doz. Dr. Csilla Neuchrist (ENT) Director of the ENT department LK Mistelbach (Lower Austria) • Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kiefer (biophysics) Centre for Radiation, Justus Liebig University Giessen, Germany Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Mosgöller (oncology) • University Hospital for Internal Medicine I, Vienna Medical University Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

15. External scientific experts • Prof. Dr. Günter Obe (genetics) Genetics department, Faculty of Biology, Duisburg-Essen University, Germany • Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Reitner (neuro-ophthalmology) University Hospital for Ophthalmology and Optometry, Vienna Medical University • Prim. Univ.-Prof. Dr. Heinz Pflüger • Member of the management committee for the Urology department at Hietzing hospital, until three months ago head of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Andrology and Urology Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

16. Accepted findings 2012: Introduction • The information provided is based on the results of scientific works. • In order to correctly interpret the data, it is important to have an understanding of the quality of the investigations. • Scientific quality differs from study to study and this was taken into account in the overall assessment. There is an excess of summary articles giving an overview in comparison to original material providing new data. • The results prepared during the WBF 2012 expert forum are based on 123 studies that were published between February 2011 and January 2012. The scientific quality varied from study to study and this was taken into account in the overall assessment. • Approximately 700 scientific works have been assessed by the WBF to date. Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

17. Accepted findings 2012 Mobile communications and a person’s mental state: • There is not yet any proof that high-frequency magnetic fields generated by mobile communication structures disrupt a person’s mental state. • Physical distance to mobile communication emitters alone cannot be considered an acceptable parameter in calculating actual exposure.  One study (in 2011) was able to demonstrate that UMTS mobile telephones did not affect cardiac pacemakers. Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

18. Accepted findings 2012 • Mobile communications and cognitive abilities: • According to current research, the impact of high-frequency electromagnetic fields on cognitive functions can be ruled out. • Mobile communications and brain activity: • Contradictory changes were noted for individual parameters (e.g. EEG, ERP, EP, cerebral glucose metabolism) either during or after exposure. These changes did not have any physiological relevance. • No impact on blood flow in the brain was recorded. • Ultimately, there was no evidence of any negative effects on health. Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

19. Accepted findings 2012 • Mobile communications and genotoxicity: • The issue of potential genotoxic effects caused by mobile communications is still a topic of discussion and has not yet been conclusively clarified. To date, there is no proof of a genotoxic effect in-vivo. • No new findings were identified during the reporting period. • Mobile communications and male fertility • The handful of available studies are tainted with method-related difficulties and do not detect any permanent influence of mobile radiation on male fertility. Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

20. Accepted findings 2012 • Mobile communications and hearing: • Temporary changes of the function of the biological cells in the human auditory system were noted. However, there was no evidence for an influence on hearing when exposed to mobile communications. • Mobile communications and children: • There are currently no studies stating that children are particularly sensitive to exposure to mobile communications. • More recent studies have also been unable to post consistent proof that children are more sensitive to mobile communications. Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

21. Accepted findings 2012 • Mobile communications and the growth of tumours: • From an epidemiological point of view, there is currently no significant, conclusive evidence on whether or not mobile communication technology causes a risk for cancer. • Because of the uncertainties of the available study results on the link between the use of mobile communication devices and the development of cancer until now, it is still recommended that mobile telephones are used with care until a sufficiently large number of high-quality studies have been carried out and a conclusive assessment of the potential risk has been made. Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

22. Accepted findings 2012: General information • Epidemiological studies could provide proof of potential links. Causal links between exposure to mobile telephones and a danger to human health cannot be deduced from epidemiological studies. • Method-related problems when compiling data are still a major challenge. The main issue here is that many studies still do not apply adequate, accurate methods for exposure-determination. . • There is only a small amount of new data from original works in comparison to the data that are often re-used in reviews or meta-analyses. Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

23. Accepted findings 2012: General information • The WBF recommends that research must be performed in the following areas: • Further basic research into mechanisms and models • Huge prospective cohort studies • More dosimetric studies on the determination of the amount of energy absorbed by the human body, focusing on children. Improvement of the current standard procedures is necessary. • The WBF also recommends that new technologies always be used carefully . Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

24. Summary • It has not yet been scientifically proven that mobile communications pose a risk to human health. • Therefore, it must be assumed that mobile communications do not pose any danger to human health , if the safety values are respected. • The overall assessment must take account of the fact that the WBF has discussed and evaluated approximately 700 scientific works up to date. • The fact is that every single person can, to a certain extent, control the level of mobile communications to which they are exposed. Physical principles Biological effects Limit values Wissenschaftlicher Beirat Funk

26. Cancer incidence Various causes of cancer by percentage (Henschler 1991)

27. Thank you for your attention