Above:

ICEMS Position Paper on Cerebral Tumor Court Case

International Commission on Electromagnetic Safety’s (ICEMS) position paper on Italian court case (Oct. 2012) assigning damages based on cancer injury by cell phone.

—————————————————————

News article:

Italy court ruling links mobile phone use to tumor

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/19/us-italy-phones-idUSBRE89I0V320121019

(Reuters) – Italy’s supreme court has upheld a ruling that said there was a link between a business executive’s brain tumor and his heavy mobile phone usage, potentially opening the door to further legal claims.

The court’s decision flies in the face of much scientific opinion, which generally says there is not enough evidence to declare a link between mobile phone use and diseases such as cancer and some experts said the Italian ruling should not be used to draw wider conclusions about the subject.

“Great caution is needed before we jump to conclusions about mobile phones and brain tumors,” said Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics and clinical engineering at Britain’s Royal Berkshire Hospital.

The Italian case concerned company director Innocenzo Marcolini who developed a tumor in the left side of his head after using his mobile phone for 5-6 hours a day for 12 years. He normally held the phone in his left hand, while taking notes with his right hand.

Marcolini developed a so-called neurinoma affecting a cranial nerve, which was apparently not cancerous but nevertheless required surgery that badly affected his quality of life.

He initially sought financial compensation from the Italian Workers’ Compensation Authority INAIL which rejected his application, saying there was no proof his illness had been caused by his work.

But a court in Brescia later ruled there was a causal link between the use of mobile and cordless telephones and tumors.

Italy’s supreme court rejected an INAIL appeal against that ruling on October 12 though its decision was only reported on Friday.

It said the lower court’s decision was justified and that scientific evidence advanced in support of the claim was reliable. Marcolini’s situation had been “different from normal, non-professional use of a mobile telephone”, it said.

The evidence was based on studies conducted between 2005-2009 by a group led by Lennart Hardell, a cancer specialist at the University Hospital in Orebro in Sweden. The court said the research was independent and “unlike some others, was not co-financed by the same companies that produce mobile telephones”.

(Reporting By Virginia Alimenti; Additional reporting by Naomi O’Leary and Kate Kelland in London; Editing by Andrew Osborn)

————————————–

“Here is the google translation of the Court’s decision:

Court of Cassation, sez. Work, Case 3 to 12 October 2012, n. 17438

The Third President – Speaker Bandini

Conduct of the trial

By judgment of 10 –  22.12.2009 The Court of Appeal of Brescia, in the delivery of

primary care reform, condemned the Inail to pay to M. I. the pension for occupational

disease scheduled for disability 80%.

The M. it commenced proceedings claiming that, in consequence of protracted labor, for

twelve years and for 5-6 hours a day, cordless phones and cell phones left ear had

contracted a serious cancer disease, the evidence collected and surveys doctor lawyers

had led to the discovery, during the proceedings, the existence of the factual

assumptions relied on, in order to use it within the time specified phones it! the course

of employment, to the actual occurrence of a “neuroma of the ganglion of Gasser”

(cancer that affects the cranial nerves, especially the acoustic nerve and, more rarely,

as in the present case, the trigeminal cranial nerve) with results very severe despite

treatment, including surgical nature, practice, on the recurrence of such facts, as shown

in the judgment under appeal, had not been carried out disputes on appeal, focusing the

question referred to the Court for the appeal on the causal link between phone use and

the onset of the disease.

The Territorial Court, renewed consulting forensic pathologist considered day having to

follow the conclusions reached by the expert witness appointed on appeal, noting in

particular the following:

– Mobile phones (cordless) telephones and mobile phones operate through

electromagnetic waves and, according to the CTU, “In literature studies on brain tumors

with regard to tumor localization neuroma consider the auditory nerve, which is the most

frequent. Given the same histology is logical assimilate the data to the trigeminal

neurinoma “, in particular, it was observed that the two neurinomas belong to the same

body part, as both the affected nerves are in the cerebellopontine angle, which is a welldefined

portion and restricted space intracranial certainly included in the magnetic field

that is generated from the use of mobile and cordless phones;

CTU were summarized in a table with some studies carried out from 2005 to 2009 and

in three, made dall’Hardell group, had been shown a significant increase in de! relative

risk of acoustic neuroma (meaning the relative risk measure of association between

exposure to a particular risk factor and the occurrence of a defined disease, calculated

as the ratio between the incidence rates in the exposed [numerator] and unexposed

[denominator]);

– A work of 2009 of the same group had also considered other factors such as age of

the exposure, the ipsilateralità and the exposure time, indicating, as regards the

acoustic neuroma, a Odd ratio for the use of cordless of 1 , 5 and for the phone to 1.7,

considering the use of more than 10 years, Odd ratios were respectively 1.3 and 1.9,

meaning Odd ratio the ratio of the frequency with which an event occurs in a group of

patients and the frequency with which the same event occurs in a group of control

patients, waves if the value dell’Odd ratio is greater than 1 means that the probability of

occurrence of the event considered ( for example a disease) in a group (for example

among the exposed) is higher than that of another group (for example between the nonexposed),

while opposite meaning has a value less than 1;

– A recent review of The International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection

had shown the limits of epidemiological studies hitherto carried out and concluded that,

at present, there was no convincing evidence of the role of radio in tumorigenesis, but

adding that the studies did not have excluded the association;

– Additional authoritative review (Kundi in 2009) had confirmed the doubts that

epidemiological studies lead regarding the exposure time and concluded for an

individual risk low, but present; exposure could affect the natural history of cancer in

various ways: by interacting at the initial stage of induction, by intervening on the time of

development of slow-growing tumors, such as neurinomas, accelerating it and avoiding

the possible natural involution;

– Analysis of the literature did not lead to a judgment so exhaustive, but, with all the

limitations inherent in the type of studies, an additional risk for brain tumors, and in

particular for the neuroma was documented after exposure for more than radio

frequency of 10 years from mobile phones and mobile phones;

– The exposure time was an evaluation very important, because, in the 2006 study, the

exposure for more than 10 years resulted in a relative risk of 2.9 calculated surely

significant;

– So it was a situation of “individual” that led back to the experts “inductive-probabilistic

model” and the “weak causality”, having still value during retirement;

– Should therefore be recognized, according to the CTU, a role at least concausale

Radio in the genesis of cancer suffered by the insured, qualified configuring probability:

– Censorship dell’lnail for studies not used by the CTU was on target, as the 2000 study

of the WHO, which ruled out any adverse effects on health, it was based on data dating

back more, not taking into account the then ‘ Use newer, much more massive and

widespread of these devices and the fact that it is a slow onset tumors, which makes

them more reliable than studies carried out in 2009;

– Furthermore, as observed by CT Part M., studies of 2009 had not been conducted on

a small number of cases, but, on the contrary, the total number of cases (679) that had

occurred in a year in Italy; Moreover, unlike the IARC study, co-funded by the

manufacturers of mobile phones, the studies cited by the CTU were independent;

– Again, as measured by CT of the M., comparing the data of individual risk calculated

by the CTU (2.9) with the experience of the risk factor universally recognized, exposure

to ionizing radiation, should be considered as Japanese survivors of the atomic

explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was found a relative risk of type cancer of 1.39

for “all cancers” with a minimum of 1.22 for tumors of “uterus and cervix” and a

maximum of 4 , 92 for the “leukemia”, which meant that the risk oncogenic average of

ionizing radiation was less than what you had for exposure to radio frequencies in

reference to neurinomas intracranial, what made even more evident the real extent of

the findings of the CTU;

– According to the teaching of the law of legitimacy, in the case of occupational disease

has not tabellata, as well as in the multifactorial etiology of disease, evidence of the

cause of labor, burden on the worker must be assessed in terms of reasonable certainty

in the sense that, excluding the relevance of the mere possibility of occupational origin,

it can be rather RECOGNIZING in the presence of a significant degree of probability,

and, in this regard, the court must not only enable the insured to bring the evidence

admissible and ritually deducted, but must also consider the conclusions of probabilistic

expert on the subject of causation, whereas the professional nature of the disease can

be inferred with a high degree of probability on the type of work performed, the nature of

the machinery present in the work, duration of work performance and the absence of

other factors outside work, alternative or competitors that may constitute cause of the

disease;

– Was therefore considered that the existence of a high probability that integrates the

causal link required by law. Against the above judgment of the Territorial Court reborn

brought an action founded on two grounds and illustrated with memory M. The ordered

I. has resisted defense, illustrated with memory.

Reasons for Decision

1. By its first plea the applicant alleges infringement of Article Institute. 3 Presidential

Decree n. 1124/65, noting that, according to the principles of law developed by the case

law of legitimacy, the correct application of that provision requires, in particular, the

assessment on the basis of epidemiological data and literature deemed reliable by the

scientific community, that the ‘agent in dispute is equipped with pathogenic efficiency,

the less likely for the specific disease diagnosed and attached, the above causal

relationship could not therefore be supported “by the staff assessment to the GIP,

based on the preference for certain epidemiological data than to others, but must be

supported by an assessment of reliability of the data expressed by the scientific

community “, in this case, the CTU had dwelt solely on the results of the Hardell group,

in contrast with those of the scientific community, in addition the CTU had the quite

arbitrarily used the accounts between exposure to radio frequency and acoustic

neuroma, suggested by the group Hardeil to affirm the causal relationship, even with a

judgment of probability qualified, including such radio frequencies and trigeminal

neurinoma, was about to be noted that the Scientific Committee for the development

and periodic review of the diseases which is mandatory reporting pursuant to art.

Presidential Decree No. 139. 1124/65, when updating the list approved by Ministerial

Decree 11.12.2009, had not seen fit to include tumors of the cranial nerves, induced by

RF exposure, including diseases of possible occupational origin. 1.2Secondo the

jurisprudence of this Court, in the case of occupational disease has not tabellata, as

well as in the multifactorial etiology of disease, evidence of the cause of labor, burden

on the worker must be assessed in terms of reasonable certainty, in the sense that

included the importance of the mere possibility of occupational origin, it can be rather

RECOGNIZING in the presence of a significant degree of probability, in this regard, the

court must not only enable the insured to bring the evidence admissible and ritually

deducted but must also consider the conclusions of probabilistic expert on the subject of

causation, by having recourse to any action ex officio directed to acquire further

information in relation to the entity and the worker’s exposure to risk factors and also

considering that the professional nature the disease can be inferred with a high degree

of probability on the type of work performed, dahlia nature of the equipment present in

the work, duration of work performance and the absence of other factors outside work,

alternative or competitors that may be due to the disease (see, ex plurimis, Cass., nn.

6434/1994, 5352/2002, 11128/2004, 15080/2009).

The judgment under appeal that the application of these principles, recognizing, based

on the considerations set out at length in the center of the dispute, the existence of the

requirement of a high probability that integrates the causal link.

It is therefore apparent denounced the habit of violating the law, which is in fact based

on an alleged erroneous assessment (by the CTU and the Territorial Court) the

reliability of the data taken into account in order to substantiate this requirement and,

therefore, substantially on a lack of reasoning (in fact deducted the second ground of

appeal).

The reason for the examination must be dismissed.

2. By its second plea the applicant alleges precisely Institute flaw in the reasoning,

assuming that:

– CTU second degree, after having pointed out that the review of The International

Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection concluded that, at present, there was

no convincing evidence of the role of radio in tumorigenesis, although not the

escludendosene ‘association, without logical consequentiality and without motivation

had come to the conclusion of the probability of a qualified least concausale role of

radio in the genesis of cancer for which it is due;

– Was considered day without any scientific basis for the withholding assimilation, on the

etiopathogenesis of neurinoma of the acoustic nerve and the trigeminal, being “common

knowledge” of medical science that tumors of the same histological type, but with

different location, although in ‘ scope of the same anatomical district, recognize different

causes and that any potential carcinogen that comes in contact with the human body

modifies its action depending on the tissues which crosses or with which it comes into

contact, and, in fact, the acoustic nerve and the trigeminal nerve, particularly the

ganglion of Gasser, have a different position in the skull and there are various

anatomical structures that separate them from the outside and from each other;

the Territorial Court had not responded to comments made by the Institute, also with

reference to the fact that it was “in progress” an epidemiological study international

“interphone”, coordinated by IARC and WHO, based on the precautionary principle, had

suggested “a policy of risk management that is applied in a situation of” scientific

uncertainty “”:

– Was considered irrelevant from a scientific affirmation of the Territorial Court regarding

the reliability, because independent study of Hardell group, compared with co-financing

of research “interphone” by mobile phone manufacturers, forgetting that this research is

funded by the European Union and directed and coordinated by the IARC (International

Agency for research on Cancer);

– Even the Territorial Court had decided to call CTU to remember clarification in the face

of criticism. The 2.1 jurisprudence of legitimacy has repeatedly said that in the

judgments that have been put CTU medical-legal, in the case where the trial judge is

based on the conclusions dell’ausiliario the judiciary, so that alleged errors and

deficiencies lead technical advice a flaw in the reasoning of the judgment in cassation

reportable, it is necessary that the related vices formal logic will materialize in a clear

deviation from the notions of medical science or sostanzino in illogical statements or

scientifically incorrect, with the relative burden borne by the party to indicate their

sources, without being able to limit the same to mere considerations made by the

opposing standpoints, resulting in an unacceptable criticism of conviction of the trial

court that is based, precisely, on technical advice (see, former plurimis, Cass., nos.

16392/2004, 17324/2005, 7049/2007, 18906/2007).

In the case before the Institute applicant to contest the withholding assimilation, on the

etiopathogenesis of neurinoma of the acoustic nerve and the trigeminal, not specific –

taking refuge in the concept of “common knowledge” – the scientific sources, having

been duly deducted and acquired the judgment, according to which they should be

considered scientifically incorrect statements made about them by the CTU and follow

the judgment under appeal, only to take the matter to the Court for an assessment of

merit inadmissible when legitimacy.

Nor is given detect and denounced the alleged failure to lack of consequential logic and

reasoning in the conclusions of the probability of a qualified role at least concausale

Radio in the genesis of cancer for which it is due, provided that such judgment, as

expounded in the historic of a dispute, it does not follow from the mere statement of

conclusions (obviously dissimilar) who had received the recalled review of The

International Commission on Non-lonizing Radiation Protection, but rather by the

findings of other studies in epidemiological undertaken on this subject.

In addition, and significantly, the judgment under appeal, following the observations of

the CTU, has seen fit to consider of particular importance for studies that had taken into

account other factors such as age of exposure, the exposure time and ipsilateralità

since, in this case, had assessed the existence of a causal link in relation to a particular

factual situation of all, characterized by exposure to radio frequency for a continuous

period of time very long (about 12 years), for a daily average of 5 – 6 hours and

concentrated mainly on the left of the insured (which, as the plain evidence, realizes a

situation quite different from a normal non-professional use of the phone).

The further relevance to the greater its reliability of such studies, given their position of

independence, ie for not being co-financed, unlike others, also by the manufacturers of

mobile phones, and is further not illogical basis of the arguments accepted.

Neither has been deducted – and much less proved – that the epidemiological If

conclusions were taken into particular consideration come from working groups lacking

seriousness and authority and, as such, essentially unrelated to the scientific

community.

The alleged prevalence, according to the applicant, should be given to the findings of

other research groups (whose investigations, however, according to the arguments, at

least at the time of the main proceedings were still “in progress”), resolve ALSO ‘them in

the request for a review of the merits, not allowed in the legitimacy. Having the

Territorial Court also found in the earlier consideration of the CTU and the CT part of M.

elements considered sufficient to refute the criticisms of the Institute, there was the

need to invest further CTU a request for clarification.

The second ground of appeal must therefore be rejected.

3. Ultimately, the appeal must be dismissed

The outcome of each dissimilar judgments of merit and novelty, in terms of factual

peculiarities of each obligation in the case, recommend the payment of expenses.

P.Q.M.

Dismisses the action; expenses compensated.

—————————————————–

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9619514/Mobile-phones-can-cause-brain-tumours-court-rules..html

Mobile phones can cause brain tumours, court rules.

A landmark court case has ruled there is a link between using a mobile
phone and brain tumours, paving the way for a flood of legal actions.

By Richard Alleyne

Innocente Marcolini, 60, an Italian businessman, fell ill after using a
handset at work for up to six hours every day for 12 years.

Now Italy’s Supreme Court in Rome has blamed his phone saying there is a
“causal link” between his illness and phone use, the Sun has reported.

Mr Marcolini said: “This is significant for very many people. I wanted
this problem to become public because many people still do not know the
risks.

“I was on the phone, usually the mobile, for at least five or six hours
every day at work.

“I wanted it recognised that there was a link between my illness and the
use of mobile and cordless phones.

“Parents need to know their children are at risk of this illness.”

British scientists have claimed there is insufficient evidence to prove
any link to mobiles.

But the respected oncologist and professor of environmental mutagenesis
Angelo Gino Levis gave evidence for Mr Marcolini — along with neurosurgeon
Dr Giuseppe Grasso.

They said electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile and cordless phones
can damage cells, making tumours more likely.

Prof Levis told The Sun: “The court decision is extremely important. It
finally officially recognises the link.

“It’ll open not a road but a motorway to legal actions by victims. We’re
considering a class action.”

Mr Marcolini’s tumour was discovered in the trigeminal nerve — close to
where the phone touched his head.

It is non-cancerous but threatened to kill him as it spread to the carotid
artery, the major vessel carrying blood to his brain.

His face was left paralysed and he takes daily morphine for pain.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch, which campaigns for more research on
mobile use, said: “This is an interesting case and proves the need for
more studies.

“People should limit mobile and cordless use until we know more.”

The World Health Organisation urged limits on mobile use last year,
calling them a Class B carcinogen.

But a spokesman for Britain’s Health Protection Agency said: “The
scientific consensus is that mobile phones do not cause cancer.”

International radiation biology expert Michael Repacholi said: “Studies
show no evidence of cancer. But if you are worried, use a headset,
hands-free or loudspeaker.”

Media lawyer Mark Stephens said the verdict could “open the floodgates” —
even though there is no direct obligation on British courts to follow the
Italians’ lead.

He said: “It is possible people will begin legal action here, but I think
the chances of success are less. I think they’ll join any class action in
Italy.”