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

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.

Measuring effects of voluntary attention: a comparison among predictive arrow, colour, and number cues.

The Posner cueing paradigm is one of the most widely used paradigms in attention research. Importantly, when employing it, it is critical to understand which type of orienting a cue triggers. It has been suggested that large effects elicited by predictive arrow cues reflect an interaction of involuntary and voluntary orienting. This conclusion is based on comparisons of cueing effects of predictive arrows, nonpredictive arrows (involuntary orienting), and predictive numbers (voluntary orienting). Experiment 1 investigated whether this conclusion is restricted to comparisons with number cues and showed similar results to those of previous studies, but now for comparisons to predictive colour cues, indicating that the earlier conclusion can be generalized. Experiment 2 assessed whether the size of a cueing effect is related to the ease of deriving direction information from a cue, based on the rationale that effects for arrows may be larger, because it may be easier to process direction information given by symbols such as arrows than that given by other cues. Indeed, direction information is derived faster and more accurately from arrows than from colour and number cues in a direction judgement task, and cueing effects are larger for arrows than for the other cues. Importantly though, performance in the two tasks is not correlated. Hence, the large cueing effects of arrows are not a result of the ease of information processing, but of the types of orienting that the arrows elicit.

Critical comments on DNA breakage by mobile-phone electromagnetic fields [Diem et al., Mutat. Res. 583 (2005) 178-183].

In a publication that appeared in 2005 (Diem et al., Mutat. Res. 583:178-183) [10] harmful effects (DNA breakage) were reported to occur in rat and human cells after exposure to mobile-phone electromagnetic fields. The extremely low standard deviations in this paper, and in another publication by the same group of authors, prompted Vijayalaxmi to write a critical comment [Mutat. Res. 603 (2006) 104-106] [16]. An investigation by the Medical University of Vienna (Austria) was initiated by a letter by the first author of the present paper, based on the data contained in the reply by the authors [Rüdiger et al., Mutat. Res. 603 (2006) 107-109] [17]. The University published three press releases, stating that "the data were not measured experimentally, but fabricated" and that the Mutation Research paper and another, published by the International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health (IAOEH) in 2008, should be retracted. So far, neither of these papers has been retracted. Only a Letter of Concern by the Editors of IAOEH, and an Editorial by Mutation Research were published. Here we describe the statistical methods used to identify the evidence of data fabrication. The major point is the small variation in the reported data, which is below the theoretical lower limit derived from multinomial distributions and also lower than those derived from detailed simulations. Another reason for doubt was the highly significant non-equal distribution of last digits, a known hint towards data fabrication. In view of the results of the University's investigation and the evidence presented in this paper, the Diem et al. (2005) [10] publication should be retracted, with or without the authors' agreement.