Documents diseases of central nervous system 6 results

Toluene is the common name for methylbenzene, a commercially important intermediate chemical produced throughout the world in enormous quantities. The general population is exposed to toluene mainly through inhalation of vapour in ambient air or from cigarette smoke. Apart from risks associated with occupational exposure, toluene poses special hazards to "glue-sniffers", who intentionally abuse solvent mixtures containing this chemical.
This report assesses close to 500 animal and human studies concerned with the effects of short- and long-term exposure to toluene, including its abuse. Environmental effects are also considered. While concluding that exposure of the general population and environment does not presently constitute a significant hazard, the report notes that solvent abuse may be associated with permanent pathological changes.

"Parkinson's disease (PD) is the most common cause of parkinsonism and neurodegenerative disorder after Alzheimer's disease. It is caused by the progressive loss of dopaminergic neurons of the substantia nigra pars compacta which is accompanied by the presence of Lewy bodies. Its diagnosis is clinical and there is a risk of misdiagnosis with other causes of parkinsonism. PD is exceptional before age 50, and its frequency increases with age, with an incidence of about 1 to 5 per 1000 person-years after age 60. PD has consistently been shown to be about 1.5 times more common in men than in women. PD is considered as a multifactorial disease resulting in the majority of cases of multiple factors. Monogenic PD occurs in a minority of patients, but several small-effects susceptibility genes are implicated in sporadic forms. Heritability is however small, and it is generally considered that environmental factors are involved in PD aetiology."

"The results of the dialogue pertain on the one hand to procedural issues, and on the other hand to the results of these procedures, i.e. the evaluations.

First, the procedures that MUT developed and enhanced for the risk evaluation. This includes the initiation of a risk dialogue as well as instruments for the characterization of the evaluations of individual research studies.

The most important innovation is the aptly named "evidence framework", that allows for a transparent summarization of the experts' line of reasoning. As always, the summarization of individual studies into an overall evaluation is dependent upon their interpretation. Consequently, it is not surprising that subjective assessment measures are apparent since there exist no unambiguous rules or evaluation-standards as to the approach and implementation of how very different studies with at times contradictory findings are to be summarized into an overall picture.

To address this shortcoming of the risk evaluation process, MUT has developed the "evidence framework" with which the most crucial arguments for as well as against a risk suspicion, the conclusions of the experts, and the remaining uncertainties can be better understood.

For several issues, clarifications of content could be achieved through the dialogue process. In other areas, contradictions and ambiguity remain, which signifies a demand for future research. Consequently, according to the assessment of the experts, the present research studies provide no indication that high-frequency electromagnetic fields of mobile phone communication cause cancer in animal experiments or promote cancer growth. The studies of the blood-brain-barrier also find no indications of effects from electromagnetic fields by mobile phone communication.

Furthermore, the experts concluded that the experimentally determined effects of mobile phone communication on the central nervous system do not pose a recognizable health disadvantage. The same applies to the indications of genetic damage. Since this does not result in damage to the cells, it does not support the derivation of a health endangerment, according to the opinion of the experts.

For most impairments of well-being - the exception being headaches - the experts view the weight-of-evidence as so weak, that an evaluation is hardly feasible. However, from the perspective of the experts, the few existing research findings don't indicate a link to exposure with HF EMF. Admittedly, the experts see an indication of a link between headaches and mobile phone usage. However, it remains uncertain whether this proves a relationship between electromagnetic fields and headache, or whether the cause could simply be telephone stress.

The issue of a special sensitivity (electromagnetic hypersensitivity) of certain persons to the EMF of mobile phone communication could not be conclusively clarified. Admittedly, no findings that speak in favor of the existence of such a special sensitivity could be found, but it can also not be ruled out with certainty. For the same reason, it cannot be evaluated whether effects may possibly manifest themselves in sick or health-impaired individuals.

The findings regarding epidemiological cancer studies are in part contradictory. Consequently, the experts arrived at different evaluations: on the one hand they evaluated that a cancer-promoting effect is likely not to be expected, but on the other hand they evaluated that there is a vague initial suspicion. The scientists agreed, however, that after a few years of use of mobile phones, an increased risk of tumors is not to be expected.

Altogether, in light of the six topic areas investigated, support for the hypothesis that EMF of mobile phone communication exhibits unhealthy effects was not strengthened."

(Extract from the website)

"This is the first annual report by an international independent expert group for electromagnetic fields and health appointed by SSI. The scope of this first report is radio frequency fields of the type used by mobile telephony. The group decided to focus on epidemiological research on cancer and exposure from mobile phones and transmitters as well as experimental cancer research In addition three selected topics were also discussed, namely blood-brain barrier, heat shock proteins, and precautionary framework. A review (IEGMP 2000) commissioned by the UK government was used as starting point.
The focus of this report is on epidemiological and experimental cancer research, blood-brain barrier and heat shock proteins. In none of these areas have there been breakthrough results that have warranted firm conclusions in one way or the other. It is worth noting, however, that intense research is currently ongoing in several countries and new data will gradually become available. Given the complexity of the research area it is essential that both positive and negative results be replicated before accepted. Given the increase of new technologies, it is essential to follow various possible health effects from the very beginning, particularly since such effects may be detected only after a long duration, due to the prolonged latency period of many chronic diseases. Thus, more research is needed to address long-term exposure, as well as diseases other than those included in the ongoing case-control studies."