Recently the English report Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (MTHR) 2012 was mentioned in the ISPreview. The full report can be found here.
It is somewhat curious that the report is dated 2012 and published in 2013. It has so far not gained any media or other notice. The more remarkable is the conclusion on cancer risks from use of mobile phones at page 7 in the report:
”Future directions
Taken together, the studies discussed in this section and those of section 2 of the MTHR Report 2007 do not suggest that exposure to mobile phone signals is associated with an increased risk of cancer.”
This conclusion is based on ignorance and wishful thinking. There is no scientific discussion of the evidence that would support such a conclusion. No reference is given to the relevant literature. One example is that no of our numerous publications on brain tumour risk associated with use of wireless phones is discussed or included in the reference list. No discussion of cordless phones is made. No reference is given to the IARC evaluation in May 2011 of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) concluding the category Group 2B, possible human carcinogen for such exposure.
The previous MTHR publication in 2007 had a more thorough discussion concluding that long-term exposure data are needed and that an increased risk with longer time of use can not be excluded. In fact our further studies have supported such an association. The 2007 report did also discuss cordless phones.
MTHR 2012 has so large scientific deficits that it can not be taken at face value and as a clean bill of no cancer risks from RF-EMF. It deserves no attention and it is a pity that tax payers’ money is used in such a biased way. By excluding a large body of scientific literature any false conclusion can be drawn. On the other hand – not to discuss our studies shows the strength of our findings since obviously there is no scientific base to discredit the findings. Thus the only remaining option is to exclude them so as to be able to present a conclusion that even might be pre-determined.
Lennart Hardell's blog 