R-I-I-N-G: The latest on the health and environmental impacts of mobile phones
The health and environmental impacts of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone handsets and base stations have been a topic of controversy for years now. Scientific studies produced conflicting results but conflicts of interests among researchers are common considering the financial and political clout of the telecom industry. A few of the latest developments are summarized here.
Impact on sleep
Short-term exposure to GSM wireless communications signals seems to have an immediate effect on sleeping patterns. Researchers in Sweden and the US observed that sleep disturbances frequently occurred in individuals who were exposed to 884 MHz frequency signals comparable to those emitted by mobile phone hand sets. Adverse effects on sleep quality as measure by EEG were observed. Sleep stages 3 and 4 were especially affected.
Data was based on self-reported symptoms in a study group of blinded 35 men and 36 women [1].
Impact on fetuses and neonates
Egyptian researchers observed that the use of mobile phones by pregnant women can increase heart rates and decrease cardiac outputs of the fetuses. The same was also observed in neonates [2].
Impact on birds
The population of the house sparrows Passer domesticus in Europe has been on the decline for years now and electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations might be partly responsible for this. Researchers in Belgium [3] and Spain [4] observed that spatial variation of these birds is significantly correlated to the strength of EMR in a certain area.
A more comprehensive review of the problem was initiated by a group of experts in 2007 who wrote the BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF) [5].
“The current guidelines for the US and European microwave exposure from mobile phones, for the brain are 1.6W/Kg and 2W/Kg, respectively.” Based on recent findings and the BioInitiative Report, “a new biologically based guideline is warranted.” [6].
References:
- Arnetz et al. 2007. The effects of 884 MHz GSM wireless communication signals on self-reported symptom and sleep (EEG)- An experimental provocation study. Progress in Electromagnetics Research Symposium
- Rezk et al. 2008. Fetal and neonatal responses following maternal exposure to mobile phones. Saudi Medical Journal 2008 Feb;29(2):218-23.
- Everaert & Bauwens, 2007. A possible effect of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone base stations on the number of breeding house sparrows (Passer domesticus) Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine January 2007; 26(1): 63-72
- Balmori & Hallberg, 2007. The urban decline of the house sparrow (Passer domesticus): A possible link with electromagnetic radiation Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine April 2007; 26(2): 141-151
- BioInitiative Report:A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF). www.bioinitiative.org
- Hardell & Sage, 2008. Biological effects from electromagnetic field exposure and public exposure standards. Biomed Pharmacother. 2008 Feb;62(2):104-109.
Stem Cells for Safer Medicines
The closing date for expressions of interest to join Stem Cells for Safer Medicines (SC4SM) is fast approaching - on 24 October 2007 [1].
SC4SM is an independent nonprofit organization formed through a consortium of public agencies and private companies which include three international drug companies GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca and Roche and the government agencies Department of Health, the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS), the Scottish Government, the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).
The main objective of SC4SM is “to enable the creation a bank of stem cells, open protocols and standardized systems in stem cell technology that will enable consistent differentiation of stem cells into stable homogenous populations of particular cell types, with physiologically relevant phenotypes suitable for toxicology testing in high throughput platforms.”
This is the first open involvement of pharmaceutical companies in human embryonic stem cell research and certainly the first consortium of its kind. [2]
From Tech to Biotech to Pharmaceuticals: Outsourcing to India
India has been the center of outsourcing activity in the IT industry. Expectedly, biotechnology followed suit. The southern state of Karnataka is home to 55% of all biotech companies in India. Its capital, Bangalore has the largest biocluster in India, hosting 158 of 320 biotech companies in the country [1]. And then came the pharmaceutical industry. According to the March 2007 CanTech Biotech report, India is fast becoming the new favourite outsourcing destination of big drug companies.
India’s Drugs and Cosmetics Rules used to be rather restrictive, requiring that clinical trials conducted in India should be one phase behind those conducted in other countries. This requirement was invalidated in 2005 by a new law allowing trials to be in-sync with the rest of the world [2]. With the new ruling, drug development experienced rapid growth. Hundreds of millions of US dollars are spent in the conduct of clinical trials in India every year by some of the biggest names in the industry. So what makes India so attractive to the pharmaceutical industry? Aside, from the low cost, India has the following advantages:
- English is spoken by a large proportion of the Indian population, overcoming language barriers encountered in other BRIC* countries.
- India is home to well-trained doctors and other medical and research personnel.·
- India’s population is characterized by high genetic diversity, making it the ideal pool from which to recruit subjects.
Rapid growth does not come without problems. There are major concerns over “abuse and misconduct” [2,3]. Noncompliance with GCP and poor pharmacovigilance are not uncommon. Monitoring and auditing CROs in foreign countries is not an easy task for regulatory agencies like US FDA and EMEA. India’s regulatory bodies themselves are said to be understaffed and unprepared for this rapid surge in business [2,3].
* BRIC = the emerging economies of Brazil, Russia, India, and
China
photo credit here
Information transfer between hospitals and general practice: problems and solutions
The study by Kripalani et al. (JAMA Vol. 297:pp. 831-841) is an excellent systematic review about communications between hospitals and primary healthcare providers in different countries. And the results are quite alarming.
General practitioners (GPs) express a general dissatisfaction with the lines of communication between hospitals and practice. It seems that information transfer from hospital to GPs after patient discharge is rather slow, if not completely neglected, at the expense of the patients’ follow-up care. In many cases, reports are untimely and incomplete, and relevant clinical information, including diagnostic test results and change of medications, are often missing. No data is available about the safety repercussions of this communication deficit but the study reports that 25% of follow-up care visits are adversely affected.
In the US, it does not help that the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) guidelines give hospitals 30 days to come up with discharge summaries. This one-month time frame is simply too long and not quite patient-oriented.
The use of information technology can be an important tool in solving this communication problem but hardware and software standardization needs to be tackled first before computer-generated discharge reports can be routinely available.