<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Murray et al v Motorola Archives - EMFSA</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/tag/murray-et-al-v-motorola/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.emfsa.co.za/tag/murray-et-al-v-motorola/</link>
	<description>Electromagnetic fields South Africa</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2021 18:16:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic</title>
		<link>https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/this-is-big-news-from-usa-yet-another-expert-considers-rf-as-probably-carcinogenic/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Editor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2021 18:16:33 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brain Tumors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cellphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District of Columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr Christopher J Portier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gliomas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICNIRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murray et al v Motorola]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.emfsa.co.za/?p=19914</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Source: Posted on March 15th, 2021 Dariusz Leszczynski: I have written, on several occasions, about the differences between ICNIRP opinions and opinions of ICNIRP members when placed in non-ICNIRP scientific committees. There is something wrong with ICNIRP, that operates in detachment from science in general and thrives thanks to the support from the German government [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/this-is-big-news-from-usa-yet-another-expert-considers-rf-as-probably-carcinogenic/">This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Source: </p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" width="937" height="298" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BRHP.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-19915" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BRHP.jpg 937w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BRHP-300x95.jpg 300w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/BRHP-768x244.jpg 768w" sizes="(max-width: 937px) 100vw, 937px" /></figure>



<figure class="wp-block-embed is-type-link is-provider-brhp-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place wp-block-embed-brhp-between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place"><div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper">
<a href="https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/this-is-big-news-from-usa-yet-another-expert-considers-rf-as-probably-carcinogenic/">This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably&nbsp;carcinogenic</a>
</div></figure>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Posted on March 15th, 2021</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Dariusz Leszczynski:</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">I have written, on several occasions, about the differences between ICNIRP opinions and opinions of ICNIRP members when placed in non-ICNIRP scientific committees. There is something wrong with ICNIRP, that operates in detachment from science in general and thrives thanks to the support from the German government and telecom industry umbrella organizations as MWF and GSMA. Here are few examples of ICNIRP-bubble…</p>



<ul class="wp-block-list"><li><a href="https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/02/18/clear-indication-that-icnirp-review-of-science-is-skewed-and-should-be-independently-validated/">Clear indication that ICNIRP review of science is skewed and should be independently&nbsp;validated</a></li><li><a href="https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/01/26/berneis-disagrees-with-icnirp/">BERENIS disagrees with&nbsp;ICNIRP</a></li><li><a href="https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2020/12/10/leszczynski-statement-on-the-need-for-validation-of-icnirps-review-of-science/">Leszczynski: Statement on the need for validation of ICNIRP’s review of science</a></li><li><a href="https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2020/09/08/leszczynski-there-is-something-utterly-wrong-with-the-icnirp-membership/">Leszczynski: There is something utterly wrong with the ICNIRP&nbsp;membership</a></li><li><a href="https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2020/09/05/significant-discrepancy-of-opinions-on-5g-and-health-between-icnirp-and-the-health-council-of-the-netherlands/">Significant discrepancy of opinions on 5G and health between ICNIRP and the Health Council of the&nbsp;Netherlands</a></li></ul>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph"><em>…and a news message from Joel Moskowitz…</em></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px"><strong>Christopher J. Portier</strong>, former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), recently completed an expert report on brain tumor risk from exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation used in cellphone technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Read more at: <a href="https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/this-is-big-news-from-usa-yet-another-expert-considers-rf-as-probably-carcinogenic/">https://betweenrockandhardplace.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/this-is-big-news-from-usa-yet-another-expert-considers-rf-as-probably-carcinogenic/</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/this-is-big-news-from-usa-yet-another-expert-considers-rf-as-probably-carcinogenic/">This is Big News from USA: Yet another expert considers RF as probably carcinogenic</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Expert Report by Former U.S. Government Official Concludes High Probability Radio Frequency Radiation Causes Brain Tumors</title>
		<link>https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/expert-report-by-former-u-s-government-official-concludes-high-probability-radio-frequency-radiation-causes-brain-tumors/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Editor]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2021 16:24:10 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brain Tumors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cellphone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[District of Columbia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. Christopher J. Portier]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gliomas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Probability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Murray et al v Motorola]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Neuroma]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.emfsa.co.za/?p=19903</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Source: https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html Monday, March 15, 2021 Expert Report by Former U.S. Government Official Concludes High Probability Radio Frequency Radiation Causes Brain Tumors Christopher J. Portier, Ph.D., former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/expert-report-by-former-u-s-government-official-concludes-high-probability-radio-frequency-radiation-causes-brain-tumors/">Expert Report by Former U.S. Government Official Concludes High Probability Radio Frequency Radiation Causes Brain Tumors</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[
<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Source: </p>



<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img decoding="async" width="499" height="72" src="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Electromagnetic-radiation-safety.jpg" alt="" class="wp-image-19904" srcset="https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Electromagnetic-radiation-safety.jpg 499w, https://www.emfsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Electromagnetic-radiation-safety-300x43.jpg 300w" sizes="(max-width: 499px) 100vw, 499px" /></figure>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px"><a href="https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html">https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html</a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Monday, March 15, 2021</p>



<h3 class="wp-block-heading" style="font-size:14px">Expert Report by Former U.S. Government Official Concludes High Probability Radio Frequency Radiation Causes Brain Tumors</h3>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Christopher J. Portier, Ph.D., former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and a scientific advisor for the World Health Organization (WHO), recently completed an expert report on brain tumor risk from exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation used in cellphone technology.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">After completing a comprehensive review of the scientific literature, Dr. Portier concluded:<br>&#8220;<em>In my opinion, RF exposure probably causes gliomas and neuromas and, given the human, animal and experimental evidence, I assert that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, the probability that RF exposure causes gliomas and neuromas is high</em>.&#8221;</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">In 2011, Dr. Portier was selected to represent the CDC on an expert working group convened by the WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to review the carcinogenicity of RF radiation. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Based upon recommendations of the expert panel, the IARC declared RF radiation &#8220;<em>possibly carcinogenic to humans</em>&#8221; (Group 2B) and the following year issued a <strong><a href="https://www.saferemr.com/2013/04/who-monograph-on-cancer-risk-from.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">monograph</a></strong> summarizing the evidence. Because the preponderance of the peer-reviewed research published since 2011 supports the need to upgrade this classification, the IARC has prioritized a <a href="https://www.saferemr.com/2019/11/IARC-RFR-cancerrisk.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>new review</strong></a> to be conducted by 2024.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Dr. Portier&#8217;s 176-page expert report including 443 references was prepared for the plaintiffs in a major product liability <strong><a href="https://www.saferemr.com/2014/08/major-breakthrough-in-cellphone.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">lawsuit</a>, </strong>Murray et al. v Motorola, Inc. et al., filed in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia against the telecommunications industry. The report appears as Exhibit 3 in a recent filing with the Court.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Christopher J. Portier. Expert Report. Exhibit C. Murray et al. v. Motorola, Inc. et al. Superior Court for the District of Columbia. March 1, 2021. pp. 1-176. </p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px"><strong>The report can be downloaded from: </strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Read the Summary Statements from the Expert Report at <a href="https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html">https://www.saferemr.com/2021/03/expert-report-by-former-us-government.html</a></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Dr. Portier&#8217;s conclusion is consistent with the results of our recently published meta-analysis of the case-control research on cellular phone use and tumor risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">For a summary of our paper see:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.saferemr.com/2020/11/new-review-study-tumor-risk.html" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><strong>https://www.saferemr.com/2020/11/new-review-study-tumor-risk.html</strong></a>.&nbsp;</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">Yoon-Jung Choi<strong>+</strong>, Joel M. Moskowitz<strong>+</strong>, Seung-Kwon Myung<strong>*</strong>, Yi-Ryoung Lee, Yun-Chul Hong<strong>*</strong>. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020,&nbsp;<em>17</em>(21), 8079;&nbsp;<a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218079</a>.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px"><strong>Abstract</strong></p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px">We investigated whether cellular phone use was associated with increased risk of tumors using a meta-analysis of case-control studies. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception to July 2018. The primary outcome was the risk of tumors by cellular phone use, which was measured by pooling each odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). In a meta-analysis of 46 case-control studies, compared with never or rarely having used a cellular phone, regular use was not associated with tumor risk in the random-effects meta-analysis. However, in the subgroup meta-analysis by research group, there was a statistically significant positive association (harmful effect) in the Hardell et al. studies (OR, 1.15—95% CI, 1.00 to 1.33— n = 10), a statistically significant negative association (beneficial effect) in the INTERPHONE-related studies (case-control studies from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC); (OR, 0.81—95% CI, 0.75 to 0.89—n = 9), and no statistically significant association in other research groups’ studies. Further, cellular phone use with cumulative call time more than 1000 hours statistically significantly increased the risk of tumors. This comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found evidence that linked cellular phone use to increased tumor risk.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px"><strong>+</strong>Contributed equally to this study as the first author. &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<strong>*</strong>Correspondence.</p>



<p class="wp-block-paragraph" style="font-size:14px"><a href="https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8079">https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/21/8079</a></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za/news/expert-report-by-former-u-s-government-official-concludes-high-probability-radio-frequency-radiation-causes-brain-tumors/">Expert Report by Former U.S. Government Official Concludes High Probability Radio Frequency Radiation Causes Brain Tumors</a> appeared first on <a href="https://www.emfsa.co.za">EMFSA</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
