**2.12 French health ministry (2009)**

532 Wireless Communications and Networks – Recent Advances

According to IARC useful information was available regarding associations between the use of wireless phones and glioma, and to a lesser extent acoustic neuroma. The international Interphone study and studies from a Swedish research group (dr. Hardell) were found of most importance in the evaluation process. Both studies were found to be susceptible to bias – due to recall errors and selection for participation- but the working group nevertheless concluded that the findings of an increased risk at the highest exposed groups could not be dismissed as reflecting bias alone. A causal interpretation between exposure to mobile phone radiation and glioma and acoustic neuroma was therefore considered possible. The working group therefore decided that there is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of radiofrequency radiation. The working group also concluded that there is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of RF-radiations. Although there was evidence of an effect of RF-radiation on some of the 'other relevant endpoints' the working group reached the overall conclusion that these results provided only weak mechanistic evidence relevant to RF-induced cancer in humans. Therefore, the conclusion is that radiofrequency fields should be classified in group 2B (possible

Radiofrequency radiation is thus classified in the same group (2B) than extreme low frequency magnetic fields, coffee and styrene. This raises some questions. Are their effects really comparable? Maybe the classification is not discriminative enough to allow differentiation in the overall EMF frequency range nor does it allow to sufficiently [account] for different qualities of underlying data. According to Leitgeb (2011a,b) other classification systems, e.g., the system developed in 2001 by the German Commission on Radiation Protection (SSK), allows categorization of evidence in other and more classes. Using this system Leitgeb assigned microwave radiation to class E0: "Lack of/or insufficient evidence for causality". This illustrates that a classification in the IARC group 2B should not be interpreted by the public as proof of carcinogenicity at the same level as group 2A and 1.

The academy stated that the precautionary principle may not be 'misused' to impose unscientific opinions. Scientific data are needed, not a subjective interpretation of the precautionary principle. According to the Academy *" No mechanism is known through which electromagnetic fields in the range of energies and frequencies used for mobile communication could* 

**2.11 French academy of medicine, academy of sciences en academy of technologies** 

The National Academy of Medicine, the Academy of Science and the Academy of Technologies deplore the conclusions drawn by AFSSET from their experts' report. The three Academies congratulate the experts for their work but roundly criticize the Agency's recommendations. It does not understand why the presentation of the report does not insist on the reassuring aspects that are much more important than the few studies reporting effects. The latter are not to be considered credible alert signals. The academies also do not agree with the AFSSET recommendation to reduce exposure to cellular antennas that they

carcinogenic; see Figure 1).

*have a negative effect on health."*

consider scientifically not justified.

**(2009)** 

This is of course not correct but very often done.

**2.10 French national academy of medicine (2009)** 

The website (www.sante.gouv.fr/effets-sur-la-sante.html) of the French Health Ministry was updated in August 2009. It states that the hypothesis that radiation from mobile phone base station antennas can be hazardous to man is no longer valid. It also stated that there are no indications so far that radiation from the handset poses a health risk but did not exclude that this may be the case. The Ministry proposed a number of simple measures to reduce the radiation exposure, especially for children.

### **2.13 French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (OPECST; 2009)**

According to the report of this parliamentary organisation one cannot be completely sure that mobile phone radiation is absolutely safe but there are no proven effects so far. For this reason the report states that the ICNIRP guidelines remain valid.
