BBC Focus Magazine

[Croatguy]

Just saw this report on A Current Affair last night. If this isnt strong enough evidence, I dont know is.

Laura Sparkes reports "most 27 year olds have the world at their feet, finding you have a brain tumour was really hard to take. That dark patch there that is the tumour, it's fairly big, it's quite large."

Anna "I've been told the tumour is probably about that big and that's just here, it's positioned right there. I do think they should take a bit more responsibility I don't want to be pointing the finger or anything but they're making a lot of money out of these mobile phones."

Dr Teo says "She's a beautiful person who's done nothing wrong and that's the problem with brain cancer it's indiscriminate."

Anna "It's taking up at least 10 percent of my brain space"

Laura "Anna Tarrant's story is a chilling one, at 27 she's about to undergo life threatening brain surgery to cut this large tumour out. It's positioned right behind the ear lobe, normally I always use my right hand, in my right ear, so it's pretty much positioned right behind where I've used my phone, you put two and two together its all pointing in one direction."

Anna "It pretty much happened out here"

Laura "It all began here, four weeks ago after suffering a seizure. Anna spent five days in hospital. She was eventually diagnosed with a glioma, an aggressive brain tumour."

Anna "I think initially I was in shock, that was pretty hard to take, especially when I had no history, there was no indication"

Laura "Since diagnosed she's been researching how and why she has the tumour."

Anna "I really have probably used the mobile phone at a minimum of 2 to 3 hours a day consistently. I have been on the road in sales for 5 to 7 years and that my tumour is placed above my right ear I find that to be quite coincidental, I'm not a scientist, I'm not an expert but all things are leading to mobile usage."

Laura "What sort of duty of care do you think the mobile phone companies have?"

Anna "If there is some way we can make them more accountable, have warning signs on every mobile phone package maybe we will be able to save some lives."

Laura "Even our top epidemiologist in Australia, Dr Bruce Armstrong from Sydney University believes the research is now strong in terms of long term mobile use and tumours."

Dr Armstrong says "What was found there was evidence of a two fold increased risk in tumours. I would not want to be a heavy user of a mobile phone

Laura "Anna's not the first to raise the alarm about brain tumours, mobile phone salesman and heavy user David Smith had a tumour as a big as a golfball removed from his acoustic nerve.

So David the tumour was just here behind your ear

David "That's right behind my right ear."

Laura "Where did you used to talk on the mobile phone?"

David "I used to use my right ear."

Laura "Anna is facing up to four hours in surgery in just 11 days."

Anna "Its very scary I'm pretty good at putting on a brave face I've always been a glass half-full type of person but the thought of leaving the people I love behind is very very daunting

Dr Teo says "we're seeing the increase in tumours in the insular region, which is this region right here, the temporal lobe and frontal lobe so its right where you hold your phone."

Laura "Her neurosurgeon, the world renowned and high profile Dr Charlie Teo is worried yet another young person has come to him with a tumour near their ear."

Dr Teo "I'm not a world expert on mobile phones, nor am I am an expert on EMR, electromagnetic radiation, but I do keep up with the literature, I have written an article on it, I personally feel there is a link between mobile phone usage and the genesis of brain tumours."

Laura "Dr Teo limits his use of a mobile phone and only uses it on speaker phone and has this warning

"You've got to limit the amount of mobile phone usage, there's no reason a child should be on the phone unless there's some emergency. Id love for people to stand up and say listen this disease is bad its affecting a lot of people, more people, young people, kids, we need to put more time and money into research." Says Dr Teo

Laura "Dr Teo rates Anna's chance of surviving the operation as good but her long term prognosis is not."

Dr Teo "Invariably you can't take out all the cells, in other words its going to grow back again (butt 2.43) with radical surgery you're hoping to extend the survival to 10 years or more."

Laura "In the days leading up to her surgery, Anna's mission is to get the message out, particularly to parents who issue mobiles to their children for safety reasons."

Anna "I just hope in some way this interview can make people think twice before they answer their phone without using a hands free and maybe parents think about the responsibility they have to their children wouldn't it be better to take that precaution and avoid something like that happening to your child or yourself."

[Shadowwolf]

If this isnt strong enough evidence, I dont know is.

Ahh it's not?

Two anecdotes and some meaningless quotes do not a case make. Armstrong made his announcements in 2008, and Teo allegedly finds cause for alarm from clock radios to electric blankets to opening the microwave too soon after it finished. It also appears to be the good journo's particular interest.

The last findings on mobile phones and such indicate no particularly notable increase in risk of anything, two anecdotes on what could quite easily be a coincidence does not change this.

[Croatguy]

Shadowwolf, how many strong anecdotes will it take to convince you? Look at the facts, she used her mobile every day for an average of three hours and a tumour developes on her right frontal lobe behind her right ear. Sure it could be one freak coincidence, but a coincidence is such an easy excuse to use. You could have said the first victim from lung cancer from smoking was just a freak coincidence, as there other factors that cause lung cancer, but a person smoking two packs a day for 30 years is a sure case that smoking caused the cancer. Cant you at least consider the possibilty that using a mobile in excess will cause some brain tissue damage?

[M Paul Lloyd]

I agree that the risk of smoking were played down only to rear its ugly carcinogenic head decades later but they were genuine risks that were covered up when it comes to microwave energy well I'm afraid we have all been bathed in it for decades without any obvious ill effects and I can't see the signal from a phone making that much difference.

And if their was a genuine risk then surely thousands of similar cases would have emerged by now, not just the odd one which could be purely co-incidental?

On the other hand, maybe people should make a choice and use hands free sets that allow you to keep your phone well away from your body?

[Shadowwolf]

Shadowwolf, how many strong anecdotes will it take to convince you?

It'll take more than two in a pretty large cell phone using population and scientific evidence is always much better than anecdotes so we don't start confusing correlation with causation.

Look at the facts, she used her mobile every day for an average of three hours and a tumour developes on her right frontal lobe behind her right ear.

But look at how those facts have been unintentionally skewed. Nowhere in that report does it specify that Anna had it in the Frontal Lobe, Dr Teo just mentions that region later but not as specifying Anna had it there. Then Anna is not particularly accurate about where it was, first she says behind the ear lobe then later it becomes above the right ear. Certainly behind the ear kind of moves it away from the frontal lobe, or at least it does on the map images I'm looking at. The type she had, a glioma also appears not to have a cell phone related cause (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9586-probable-cause-of-deadly-brain-cancers-established.html

Now take a look at Australia's brain cancer stats as of 1999: http://www.ozbraintumour.org/btstats.htm

Most cancers occur in the frontal, temporal and parietal lobes which just happens to cover most of the brain area around the ears and a lot of other regions. If you are going to get a tumour, it's likely to be in one of these brain regions.

Almost 1,400 people were diagnosed with brain tumours in 1999 which is up from just less than 900 in the early eighties. A steady increase in incidence has occurred but not in line with cell phone usage I reckon.

Now back to our examples, we have two cases out of what is likely now more than 1,400, just two. One of those two has their tumour on the acoustic nerve which makes him a rarity by 1999s stats where all of one of total cases was on the acoustic nerve. The other who had it nearby, well she had to have it somewhere and it just happens to be nearby for her and she thinks there is a connection. I reckon her non radiation induced glioma is a case of coincidence, I certainly did not see the reporter note that all the other cases were about the cell phone using ear.

Cant you at least consider the possibilty that using a mobile in excess will cause some brain tissue damage?

It is possible there may be some susceptibility or long term risk, but so far the evidence is not in the favour of there being a risk. Two random anecdotes, less than a quarter percent of 1999s total out of a much much larger cell phone using population, practically the entire population these days, that's not cause to worry, that's likely coincidence.

[tina-sparkle]

I started to wake up in the mornings feeling nauseous when I moved to my new home, these episodes continued for a month and other symptoms starting too, like insomnia, itchy skin, exhaustion and rapid heart beats... all these symptoms together started to really upset me, and i decided to go and see a doctor. After a few weeks of tests and procedures there was no obvious clues as to why i was feeling so terrible and was sent home with anti-sickness tablets and was told to come back if the symptoms persisted.

Not having anywhere else to turn I typed in 'google' and started randomly searching for answers, thinking i was just going mad as i was not getting any better stumbled across wi-fi poisoning .... EMF and lots of other sites that really scare you to read about!! Well, from the information I read, I completely hard wired my home, removing all the wi-fi and within days was feeling better. It took about a month to feel back to normal. I can not be the only individual that this has happened too, maybe there are people like me, who suffer terribly within a wifi environment. This is a real sickness, it was so unexpected it just came on and I just couldn't shake it off.

This is a real health concern, I believe that just because lots of people feel fine around wifi does not mean it is safe for everyone, especially children and the elderly, and going forward really worry about long term heath issues not only for me but for my children and others that feel ill and are suffering form vast heaps of conditions that have no diagnosis.

Headaches, Migraines, miscarriages, ill health, depression, eczema...the list is endless, there does seem to be lots of health issues that seem to have no trigger..........

[Shadowwolf]

Hi there Tina and welcome along.

I think you may have confused correlation with causation here.

First off I have no idea what your doctor said or what he prescribed thus we here are always going to be working off less than the whole story. However, the university of Google is no place to turn for information, especially medical unless you really know what you're about because there is so much crap being peddled by hucksters, disturbed people and the well meaning but none-the-less wrong. Yes it is incredibly easy to run a search and turn up all manner of horror stories on EMF, cell phones, wifi etc, I can do the same with vaccines for instance and turn up as many horror stories but that does not mean any of it is true. If I run a search for say, "wifi poisoning," my top result is 'Rense' an outfit which is clearly not on amicable terms with reason or logic, thus an utterly undependable place for credible information. Unfortunately much if not most of this information whether on that site or others is pseudo-scientific nonsense with little to no reasoning behind the claims, yes it sounds scary but the most important thing to remember is that they've made it up or woefully misinterpreted an event.

Have you considered that the reason your symptoms went away was due to the medication prescribed or that your body healed the problem by itself eventually? That the symptoms passed - and we have no idea how long the turn off and return to normal took - around the same time is likely coincidence. If I got a cold and for some reason thought it was due to eating sausages and thus gave them up entirely, would I be correct in linking the passing of my cold to the cessation of sausage consumption? No and that's essentially what I think you have done, just because something happens at the same time it does not follow that the two were linked. As it was a new house there may have been lingering fumes from paint that took time to dissipate or become acclimatised to. That's a wild guess I'll grant but it's more likely than things which are not known to cause any issue being responsible. You should also be aware that wifi is quite ubiquitous these days and you're likely still living in the wifi zones of neighbouring homes as well as being in them to, from and at work.

Headaches, Migraines, miscarriages, ill health, depression, eczema...the list is endless, there does seem to be lots of health issues that seem to have no trigger..........

You should realise that your list contains items that have known triggers and issues that have existed long, long before wifi ever appeared, indeed long before electrification appeared. Headaches can be caused by lack of hydration for instance or over indulging, miscarriages by excessive defects in the foetus, heavy smoking or infections and we could go on; the cause of eczema is unknown but it has been around long before wifi ever was.There are no issues currently linked to wifi nor any evidence yet linking anything to wifi. That's not to say that such an idea is impossible, but no study has yet found any link, the best the wifi poisoners can come up with are anecdotes which are scientifically speaking next to worthless due to a whole range of problems.

You may sincerely believe that wifi caused your sickness, but that belief does not make it so and from what I've seen here and elsewhere I don't think it had any relation to the issues described.

[tina-sparkle]

Thank you for your welcome

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, however I do understand the points you raised but I did not take any of the medication that was prescribed, the house had not been newly painted, I have no immediate neighbours, Nearest is about 1/2 mile, the location is very rural and to get a mobile signal to make a call you need to walk upstairs in a far bedroom or go outside. I understand the long term health issues of WiFi are still a very new concept and there have been lots of ailments suffered by people long before this technology was around, but still as a very sceptical individual by symptoms were very real, and I went down every known route to get better, without any success! The only medication prescribed was anti-sickness tablets!!! which I mentioned I didn't take... I would had thought a rapid heart rate and fatigue would had pressed more alarm bells with my GP! I have a few very close friends that are GP's and neither knew anything about EMF levels of WIFi sickness.

I kept a diary for 4 months listing my constant sickness and ill health, and trying to establish the cause, but my lifestyle previous to the sickness was very normal and basic and still is,it is was very easy to look at everything and even the smallest changes to establish no real trigger, other than with hindsight the installation of the Wifi and then the removal! My husband tested me on this so called wifi sickness and turned the wifi on without letting me know, the results to his little unknown test were immediate... I had no idea of this, but woke in the night very nauseous and woke him. I dont drink , I dont smoke, I exercise daily, I am 40 years old with normal BMI/weight etc. and Have a superb diet. There is no explanation why I would suddenly without any triggers feel so dreadful, so incredibly dreadful, that I felt my life was seriously in danger.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Hello there tina-sparkle its a worry isn't it, what with all these gadgets beaming out signals and invading our lives and not seemingly all for the common good but the thing is without actual coroborated evidence supported by a proper wide ranging study your individual experience is just that, experience and it isn't going to cut much ice with the wifi people I'm afraid.
Consider those who live in close proximity to electricity pylons that generate such an enormous electromagnetic field effect (110,000 volts to be precise) which is so much greater than that created by wifi and yet we have no actual scientific evidence that it does any harm.
Or perhaps more in keeping with the microwave radiation that is used for wifi (something I do know a little bit about) I have to say that we have all regularly been bathed in quite powerful signals on a daily basis over the last 70 years as various radar tracking systems for air traffic and weather forecasters beam mega-watts of energy that is far more powerful than any wifi through the atmosphere, and yet this has not been shown to have any adverse side effects.

[Shadowwolf]

As Mr M indicates, we live in a sea of emf radiation as it is and it is having no discernible effect on the general population. Even assuming the wifi - which is not particularly strong afaik - was causing some reaction it would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. For instance, I have lived and worked around wifi for years as do many folks I know and I have experienced nothing nor heard of any unknown health issues as do most people of all ages; at the very least there is no effect apparent that would be more prominent on usual risk groups like the young or aged.

Now in regards to your situation, experience, recording and small test, unfortunately that's individual experience as Mr M puts it, or anecdote as it might be more commonly termed and anecdotes are practically meaningless in this context. There are just too many issues with this kind of evidence for it to be credible scientifically. For instance, memory is fallible, your memory, mine and everyone else - maybe bar those with eidetic recall - and we have no idea what has been recalled and what has not, nor do we know what blanks the mind has subconsciously filled in or embellished particularly in light of later knowledge. I'm not suggesting that you are deliberately misleading - though some folks do exactly that - but that recall is not dependable even if someone is personally certain that they are correct. Then there is the issue of the subjective interpretation all humans have and why science employs controls in experimentation to remove that subjectivity. For example, we have confirmation bias where events that confirm a hypotheses get noticed whilst events that do not go unnoticed and immediately forgotten. There is also bias itself, dissatisfied with the GP's diagnosis you search on-line and encounter certain information that seems to account for what you experience, and from there you may then unwittingly interpret everything through the lens this information has imposed because it has appeared to explain the situation. Btw can I ask where you got the bulk of or what you consider the best information?

The test - at least as described - is not really of significance, one event is not statistically significant and could easily have been an unfortunate coincidence that then fed an already acquired unease over wifi. There is also the possibility that you had in some way become aware of the unit being on and thus unwittingly spoiled the test. Controls exist in experimentation to eliminate any chance of subconscious cues distorting the data. The thing is, we don't know exactly what you knew or came in contact with as we simply cannot see from your perspective. Nor is it likely possible to run a properly controlled experiment in such a setting I might add, thus there could never be any certainty of any result derived. As it is, nothing of use could be drawn from one test.

I don't doubt that your symptoms were real, I just doubt the link you've drawn because there is no credible evidence I'm aware of that would allow for such a link. I accept that you appear to have no issues caused by anything I mentioned but that was fairly limited conjecture. I've no idea if you are stressed and linking a series of stress related issues, minor niggles and the odd other event coloured by information from perhaps non-credible sensational resources - itself increasing that stress and fear - and creating a link where none actually exists.

I have a few very close friends that are GP's and neither knew anything about EMF levels of WIFi sickness.

Now a reason why your GP friends would not know of this wifi sickness is because so far, there is no such thing that I am aware of and they probably are not aware of anything either. It should also be noted that GPs or any form of doctor does not mean infallibility and it could be that your GP has had an oversight in this case; a poor GP is also not beyond the bounds of possibility. Due to there being no known issue between health and wifi and that you have had symptoms of unknown cause, it may be a good idea to seek a second opinion and tests to be sure there are no other issues that may have been missed and are just temporarily dormant / receded. As you say, you found your GP's reaction to your symptoms to be less than you would expect for anything involving odd heart rate, if you can, get a check up and be certain nothing else is responsible.