Elektrosmognews  06. March 2015

Study – Cell Phone Radiation grow tumors: “The unexpected always happens” – comment on the study by Prof. Dr. F.Adlkofer
Statement by Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer, Pandora Foundation

The unexpected always happens
A painful lesson for the notorious slanderer Lerchl
and even more for industry and politics, in his “expertise” for many years made use of
JBS Haldane (1), large as a man and as a great scientist, has summarized the experiences of his life in one sentence: “The unexpected always happens” (The unexpected always happens). How right he has just Professor Alexander Lerchl from the private Jacobs University in Bremen has demonstrated. He, as a member of the Commission on Radiological Protection (SSK) for many years represented the radiation protection to mock the interests of industry and politics, while scientists Lennart Hardell and me, the research results were not consistent with the his, consistent, has denounced as data counterfeiters, suddenly published a work which, ad carries everything he has so far claimed absurdum.
In my article “The all-clear from health risks of mobile phones by the German Mobile Telecommunication Research Programme (DMF) is based more on wishful thinking than on facts” in the series of Kompetenzinitiative I wrote in 2008 [1]:
“The volatile nature is recently a not yet published, but at a workshop in Berlin in May 2008 published study from the Fraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine in Hanover. In this study, it was shown that the UMTS radiation itself though has little genotoxic effect in terms of tumor initiation in mice, but quite distinct epigenetic has in terms of tumor promotion.

In prenatally with the carcinogen N-Äthylnitrosoharnstoff (ENU) treated mice UMTS radiation caused at an intensity well below the current limit value is significantly higher than the effect of N-Äthylnitrosoharnstoff beyond the tumor growth rate in the liver and lung. This effect was observed when the exposure began in the womb immediately after the administration of N-Äthylnitrosoharnstoff and was continued for life after birth. The UMTS radiation alone led only to the formation of precancerous foci in the liver of animals. ”
Although the study was conducted by Tillmann et al. Published in 2010 [2], but fell despite their immense scientific importance largely forgotten. Whatever the reason, it was Lerchl, the loud preacher of the harmlessness of mobile phone radiation, reserved to repeat the Fraunhofer attempt by the Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BfS). Obviously, the results obtained were so clear that proved their cover-up from the outset to be impossible, given the numerous accomplices. Lerchl, who had hitherto always succeeded by devious test planning, mani-pulativer intervention in the experimental procedure and arbitrary data analysis to adapt its results to the wishes of its clients [3], nothing else was time left than the headlong rush to compete. He admits: “The discovered at the Fraunhofer Institute in 2010 Effects of tumors of the liver and the lungs were fully confirmed”. Although he denies the genotoxic potential of UMTS radiation, the Tillmann et al. have also observed for promotorischen effect, still now, but it’s only a matter of time before he will have to admit his mistake also.

Read More >>  http://www.elektrosmognews.de/news/20150309_125914.html

see also >>  http://www.hese-project.org/Forum/allg/index.php?id=7256

and here >>     http://www.hese-project.org/de/forenportal/index.php?lang=de



 Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans

6 March 2015


•Tumor-promoting effects of RF-EMF exposed mice have been reported in 2010.

•We have replicated the study with higher numbers of mice per group.

•We could fully confirm the previous results, thus the effects are reproducible.

•Apparently, no clear dose-response relationship is evident.

•We hypothesize that metabolic changes are responsible for the effects observed.



The vast majority of in vitro and in vivo studies did not find cancerogenic effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF), i.e. emitted by mobile phones and base stations. Previously published results from a pilot study with carcinogen-treated mice, however, suggested tumor-promoting effects of RF-EMF (Tillmann et al., 2010). We have performed a replication study using higher numbers of animals per group and including two additional exposure levels (0 (sham), 0.04, 0.4 and 2 W/kg SAR). We could confirm and extend the originally reported findings. Numbers of tumors of the lungs and livers in exposed animals were significantly higher than in sham-exposed controls.

In addition, lymphomas were also found to be significantly elevated by exposure.  A clear dose-response effect is absent. We hypothesize that these tumor-promoting effects may be caused by metabolic changes due to exposure.  Since many of the tumor-promoting effects in our study were seen at low to moderate exposure levels (0.04 and 0.4 W/kg SAR), thus well below exposure limits for the users of mobile phones, further studies are warranted to investigate the underlying mechanisms. Our findings may help to understand the repeatedly reported increased incidences of brain tumors in heavy users of mobile phones.



  • Electromagnetic fields;
  • cancer;
  • tumor promotion;
  • mice
Corresponding author. Jacobs University Bremen, Campus Ring 6, D-28759 Bremen, Germany.
Tel.: +49 421 200 3241; fax: +49 421 200 49 3241.1
Present address: Medical Physics in Radiology, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ),Heidelberg, Germany. Copyright © 2015 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans

3. Results Our study confirms and extends the previously published observations of tumor-promoting effects of life-long RF-EMF exposure. The numbers of both adenomas and carcinomas were significantly increased in the lungs, and carcinomas were significantly elevated in the livers of RF-EMF exposed animals (Fig. 1, Table 1). As compared to the sham-exposed control mice, numbers of animals with bronchiolo-alveolar adenomas (lungs) were doubled at low and moderate SAR levels, and hepatocellular carcinomas were nearly or more than doubled at low, moderate, and high SAR levels, respectively. The numbers of multiple tumors were found to be significantly elevated at 0.04 W/kg (bronchiolo-alveolar adenomas, Table S1). The numbers of animals with lymphomas were increased 2.5 fold at moderate SAR levels (Fig. 1, Table 1). No increased tumor numbers were found in the brains, kidneys, and spleens of the exposed animals. Here the tumor rates were well below 10%. As expected, survival times in all ENU-treated animals were much lower than in cage controls, but not affected by exposure (Fig. S1). Body weights of (sham-) exposed animals were only slightly different from untreated, unexposed cagecontrol mice (Fig. S2). Figure 2 shows a comparison of the findings of the previous and the present study for the lung tumors due to exposure for a nominal SAR level of 0.4 W/kg (moderate) since this one was used in both studies. It is obvious that both studies are in good agreement.

To address the debates about both the usefulness of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) in general [8,9,10], and the proper statistical analysis of replication studies [11,12,13], we additionally performed a Bayesian analysis. Exemplary analysis results for the lung tumors due to exposure at moderate levels as compared to sham-exposure are presented in Fig. 3. The hypothesis of no difference between the exposed and the sham-exposed animals is outside the 99% prediction interval for all analyses no matter whether an uninformative prior is used or an informative one based on the results from the previous study. As can be expected from the significance of the results in [4], the posterior distribution derived from the informative prior is shifted towards the right and the prediction intervals are further away from the hypothesis of no difference