The Larry King Program and Moulder


11 August 2000

(On August 9, 2000 at 9 p.m. ET, the LARRY KING LIVE show on CNN aired a panel discussion titled:  "Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?"  The following message concerns that program....... Transcript may be viewed at: )

Hi everybody:

Sam Milham has forwarded below additional information about the latency of cancer. This is in response to a question raised by Randy Ross.... The information Sam provides is self explanatory.

But, because of additional text which is shown below (from the program within the comment of Joanne Mueller), let me take this opportunity to make one of the observations which occurred to me during the course of the program. I will use the program text that appears below.

Nothing that was said during the program was quite as shocking to me as Dr. Moulder's explicit denial of the idea that CHILDREN may be more vulnerable (than adults) to the hazards of RF/MW emissions of the type present in a cell phone.

In saying what he did -- "from a biological standpoint there's no particular reason why kids should be at any greater hazard than adults" -- Moulder was denying (indeed, attacking) the worth of the recommendation which had been made by the British report (done by the Sir William Stewart group) barely two months earlier..... That report, known officially as the IEGMP Report, had recommended that children's use of cell phones should be minimized.....

After Moulder's statement, the other industry zombies on the program (named below, except for the FDA zombie -- Dr. David Feigal) chimed in to dismiss the British concerns as not warranted by the evidence...... What evidence??? Everybody agrees that there is very little specific to the cell phone, itself.... But, even the FDA has been broadcasting "P.R." hype about the study it has undertaken WITH THE TELECOM INDUSTRY.... Presumably the FDA does not prejudge that outcome by telling us that it is not needed and will find nothing???

In fact, of course, the evidence which DOES cause concern ... is the evidence that has been accumulating for more than thirty years in Europe and in the U.S. ... which shows adverse human health effects (both biological and epidemiological) as a result of electromagnetic exposure in situations other than the cell phone environment -- which, of course, has only been on the scene a little less than five years. Then, not in the hands of children.

I am frankly astounded that the FDA would take this position!!! No extra precautions are advisable for children using cell phones.....??? Does zombie Feigal correctly reflect the U.S. Government position on this??? He did not dispute, discuss or implicitly challenge in any way the Moulder position. He REINFORCED it ... with the "no conclusive evidence" argument..... That has been the litany of the tobacco industry for 50 years..... And, it is an argument that has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE IN AN AGENCY CHARGED WITH PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSIBILITIES....

I can understand Moulder's reason for his statement. His ROLE is to protect industry interests. His long curriculum vitae shows his many assignments as an INDUSTRY consultant or "expert" witness..... He knows he cannot stray from the "industry line" without jeopardizing his next assignment.....

But, the FDA......???


Roy Beavers (EMFguru)

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness..

People are more important than profit$$

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sherry & Samuel Milham"
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: Larry King Live -Kudos to Larry King & CNN (Mueller)..]


The best data we have on cancer latency comes from the atom bomb survivors and from occupational cancer studies. The shortest cancer latencies I'm aware of occur in people taking immunosuppressive drugs. Some of them get NHL in under 2 years. Leukemia latency in atom bomb survivors is strongly related to their age at exposure . Five year olds have a 5 year average latency, while 40 year olds get their leukemia about 15 years after exposure. Tumours of the blood-forming organs like leukemia and NHL have shorter latencies than do the solid tumours. The 20 year latency I cited was for menigioma in children ages 5 to 14 when they were x-rayed for tinea capitis in the 1950s when they migrated to Isreal. In almost all occupational studies, solid tumours have very long mean latencies. Mesothelioma of the pleura after asbestos exposure has a mean latency of 45 years. In my study of aluminum reduction plant workers, NHL latencies were 11 years.

There is no good data about the latency of R/F induced brain cancers, but a world wide experiment is now in progress in cell phone users. I hope that I'm wrong, but time will surely tell. Best, Sam Milham

----- Original Message -----
From: "Roy Beavers"
To: "Roy Beavers"
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2000 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: Larry King Live -Kudos to Larry King & CNN (Mueller)..]

.........Response from EMF-L........

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Larry King Live -Kudos to Larry King & CNN (Mueller)..
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 10:52:49 -0700
From: "Randy N Ross"

I do not buy the 20 year latency time for damage to express itself.

It is not strictly true that damage from x-rays causing cancer will be of the same kind as damage from cell phone electromagnetic fields. The lower frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum create different types of damage based upon the way that the emf interacts with living tissue at these frequencies. Immediately below x-rays in frequency is ultraviolet radiation that is currently causing an epidemic of skin cancers as it is absorbed almost completely in the skin. Below ultraviolet in frequency the emf of blue light has a photochemical interaction with the retina of the eye that causes eye damage below thermal injury levels.

The lower frequency visible light i.e. yellow, red etc. penetrate deeper into the skin creating "biological effects".

At the even lower frequencies of cell phones the interaction is quit different than x-rays.

So why would one say that because cancer caused by x-rays takes 20 years to show up, cancer if it is caused by cell phone radiation will take 20 years?!?

It may not take 20 years. In fact, not all ionizing radiation induced cancers take 20 years to be expressed after damage. Leukemia is typically 5 years after exposure and the thyroid cancers in children from the radioactive iodine around Chernobyl started appearing in under 5 years.

Joanne Mueller wrote:

I think that the statement by Dr. John Moulder that "....from a biological standpoint, there's no particular reason why kids should be at any greater hazard than adults...." clearly shows the viciousness and almost criminal position he is willing to take. I would ask Dr. Moulder whether he recalls taking the Hippocratic oath!!!!

Clearly there is enough suspicion regarding cancer in adults and possibility of cell phone involvement for a "responsible doctor" to support the British position rather than playing-down the issue.

Larry seemed to be astounded by some of the answers of Linda Erdreich, Managing Scientist, Exponent, as well as answers by Dr. Ian Smith of Time.

At one point after Dr. Sam Milham spoke about "not waiting until the bodies pile up," and "exposure to magnetic fields does cause cancer," Larry asked "doesn't that sound logical -- you are putting RF to your head.....!"

Dr. Sam Milham really put up a good fight stating that health effects of electromagnetic radiation are known and stated "...the consensus in the scientific community is that there is a present and real danger from RF as well as from the power frequencies."

Dr. Milham later stated "....the best evidence for cancer latency -- that's the interval between your exposure and whether you get the tumor -- from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and from kids who were treated in Israel for (unintelligible) with x-rays of the head show latencies for solid tumors, like of the brain, a minimum of 20 years. So, if you don't take precautionary steps now, I think you're just asking for a HELL OF AN EPIDEMIC!!!"

Larry then said: "And you're saying, Dr. Moulder, to the viewers with regard to their cell phones, what?"

Moulder replies: "I'm afraid that if you want a definitive answer and a definitive means, absolute assurance of absolute safety, I'm afraid you're never going to get it because we just can't do it. But the current evidence does not indicate there's any problem and there's a lot of research out there."

Among other things I am sure members of this group can add, I would remind Dr. Moulder that MEDICINE IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE!!!!

Larry asked later in the interviews: "Do you think that is what tobacco was saying in 1961?"

In reference to the lawsuit filed by Dr. Chris Newman, Larry stated "we will talk lots more in the months ahead as the trial proceeds."

Take care - Joanne Mueller

Back to Top