But — quietly — a huge international

agency has been gathering evidence, trying to answer the question:

can cellphone use lead to cancer?

A decade ago, there was a lot of buzz that the
radiation from cellphones can lead to cancer. A Florida man
went to court, arguing that his wife's brain cancer was the
result of prolonged use of cellular phones.

A number of studies had been conducted —

some said there was a link, others found no connection.

Health Canada decided there is no conclusive

evidence of a health risk from cellphones. In the U.S., a

much bigger project is underway.

In 1997, scientist George Carlo headed up the


Wireless Technology Research group in
Washington. He had spent $28 million U.S. over six years.
But because his research group was funded entirely by members
of the cellphone industry, it's dismissed as a big public
relations job.

Carlo

insists there is no proof of a health risk, supporting what

becomes sort of a message track from the cellphone industry

— from people like Roger Porier of the cellphone lobby.

"The overwhelming evidence from the scientific

community — these are the top people in the world who

are investigating these things — conclude time after

time there are no adverse health effects in fields of this

nature."

But Carlo, who was once the cellphone industry's

hired gun, has morphed into one of the industry's biggest

critics. Carlo's afraid there is a possible health threat.

He thinks we should be told.

What's changed?

Carlo says the scientific research the cellphone

industry paid him to oversee, turned up some problems.

"Is it absolute definitive proof? No, does

it raise red flags of concern among public health people?

Absolutely."

Carlo says research on rats found cellphone

use could lead to genetic damage, which some argue, could

lead to cancer. He says another small study on humans showed

an increased tendency of tumours among cellphone users.

Carlo reported his findings to the industry

and recommended it warn the public.

"When they found that we had findings of

genetic damage and increasing risk of cancer they cut off

our money completely."

Carlo's studies were shelved — and so

was he. He's now trying to apply a little scientific research

to the game of golf.

"Those of us who are no longer auditioning

for future funding can be a lot more outspoken than folks

worried about the next grant coming down the line."

But Carlo does have a tell-all book for sale.

He's sold the rights to Hollywood. In the book, he accuses

the cellphone industry of major spinning — of downplaying

the science it doesn't like and supporting research it does

like. People end up, Carlo says, thinking cellphones are all

right.

Emphasizing the positive is a lobbyist's job,

but Carlo says the cellphone industry has been doing a lot

more than that. He says it's been lobbying prestigious scientific

bodies to do a study that will make fears about cellphones

and cancer go away. And what could be more prestigious than

an agency of the United Nations and the World Health Organization?

International Agency for Research on

Cancer

For almost forty years, we've relied on the

International Agency for Research on Cancer to help us live

our lives. The Lyons, France based agency tells us what causes

cancer — so it affects what we eat and drink, how we

work and how we build our homes.

We go to meet the people who put the labels

on everything from saccharine to asbestos to second hand smoke.

When you hear something labelled possibly or probably carcinogenic,

odds are it got the label from IARC. Now IARC is looking at

cellphones.

For the past six years, scientist Elisabeth

Cardis has been overseeing the IARC cellphone study.

"What we have tried to set up is a study


in which we gave ourselves all of the
chances to find an effect, if it exists,"

Cardis said. "The risk of cancer is not very high at the


individual level, but if you multiply by a billion users around


the world, that could mean hundreds or thousands of cancers


around the world…so it’s obviously important to


determine whether there’s a risk and how big that risk

is."

The IARC study is looking
at more than 5,000 cellphone users with brain tumours in
13 countries, including Canada. It's looking to see if they
used their cellphones differently than the rest of us. This
type of epidemiological study has been done several times
before but has always been criticized — either as not
long term enough or not specific enough to find any conclusive
link to cancer. Cardis says this study will be different.

"We have designed a study which going to

overcome a lot of these limitations."

But George Carlo says the design of the IARC

study is sure to make the cellphone industry happy.

"The cellphone industry thinks this study


is the last nail in the coffin," Carlo said. "They’re


going to say that this is the biggest study that’s
ever

been done in a dozen different countries, all the top scientists,


and the findings are going to come out and say that everything


is fine for consumers."

Carlo says the study itself is flawed because

it will be biased toward finding nothing.

"We don’t want to be saying these

scientists are corrupt because they’re not. But they

have limited data and they make limited interpretation that

they have limited data. The sum total of that is that consumers

believe they are being taken care of when in fact they are

not."

Keeping science clear of the kind of industry

influence George Carlo talks about has always been a concern

at IARC. Lorenzo Tomatis saw it during his 23 years there

— 12 as the agency's director.

"It's always been on a razor blade, it

was always difficult to be completely independent."

But now Tomatis criticizes IARC for being too

open to industry pressure.

"Perhaps there is less attention on the

side of IARC in checking the influence that comes from outside."

Tomatis' concern about IARC's independence stems

from its recent ruling on another controversy.

A few years ago, there was a flap over something

called DEHP. It’s found in IV bags, blood bags and tubing

of all kinds. DEHP makes plastic soft, pliable and strong.

It was found to cause problems in rats, including infertility.

After a full review, IARC decided to downgrade
the risk of cancer from DEHP. That opened the door for more
widespread use.

Lorenzo Tomatis

For Lorenzo Tomatis, the downgrading of DEHP


was a clear sign IARC had let industry
get too close to the science.

He and 30 other scientists from around the world decided to

go public with their fears saying that allowing industry representatives

to take part in IARC's decisions about what is cancerous "compromises


public health" and that scientific papers showing a possible


link to cancer had been


"ignored or intentionally suppressed."

"If you delete a suspicion of a risk,"

Tomatis said, "you give full green light and that may

create a special danger for the public."

Paul Kleihues took over from Tomatis as head

of IARC. He says these critics always see industry as the

enemy of public health.

"If they don't have scientific reasons

they suggest a conflict of interest of industry or participants

that have a vested interest. We do not believe that any of

our recent decisions was ultimately influenced by industry."

Kleihues rejected the accusation and then barred

Lorenzo Tomatis from ever re-entering the building.

"He told me I was persona non grata and

had me escorted out by two witnesses from the building saying

I was not allowed to come back…I think even Saddam Hussein

could go back into IARC but not me. I found it totally absurd

because it was a disagreement on the interpretation of scientific

data."

Peter Kleiheus

"We did not ban him because of a scientific


disagreement," Peter Kleihues said. "What
is not acceptable is that

he questions our integrity, our striving for scientific truth.


If scientific truth is no longer our guiding principle, we’d

better close this whole place down."

What

does this squabbling mean for the cellphone study and for

those of us who use a cellphone? The critics are accusing

IARC of not trying hard enough to keep industry money and

influence away from the science. Marketplace wondered

whether industry money could be influencing IARC's study on

cellphones, especially in Canada.

Calling Canada

Dan Krewski, of the McLaughlin Centre for
Population Health Risk Assessment at the University of Ottawa,
is one of Canada's lead scientists for the IARC study.

"This’ll be the largest study of

brain cancer ever conducted and will give us the opportunity

to really look in detail for small risks with cellular technology."

Dan Krewski

Krewski has about a million dollars to fund

his part of the IARC research.

"We originally

approached the CWTA through Roger Poirier who at the time

was president and CEO of the organization."

Poirier's the man who said studies into the

cellphones and cancer risks showed “…no adverse

health effects…”

The current head of the association is Peter

Barnes. He says the million dollars his lobby group is giving

to Krewski's centre has no strings attached.

"I mean we basically sign a cheque every

year for five years, we committed to that, and apart from

knowing that the money is being used for the research that’s

the extent of our involvement."

IARC told Marketplace that Canada

is the only one of 13 countries in the study to receive funding

directly from the cellphone industry.

Marketplace's research found that the

CWTA and its members invested $1 million to help establish

the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk

Assessment at the University of Ottawa — where Dan Krewski

is doing his cellphone research.

Krewski's centre gets the cheques directly from

the CWTA. But to get the relationship stamped officially "arm's

length," he had to get the deal reviewed by the Canadian

Institutes of Health Research, which also threw in $220,000

of government money.

According to IARC guidelines, this funding has

to be indirect - so it went through the CIHR. That makes the

funding not directly connected to the industry.

The study is not Krewski's only link to the

cellphone industry. If you search the web for information

about cellphones, you might come across the Wireless Information

Resource Centre — paid for by the CWTA.

Krewski chairs the Wireless Information Resource
Centre's scientific advisory group. Roger Poirier — former
head of the CWTA — administers the web site. Another
link between the cellphone scientist and the cellphone lobby:
Poirier — the man who negotiated the million-dollar
deal — is a paid consultant on the big cellphone study
for IARC.

When we reached Poirier by phone, he told us

his involvement with the cellphone study is minor and purely

technical. He didn't want to talk to us on camera.

Krewski described Poirier's involvement as "a
liaison."

"He puts us in contact with the right people

when we need info on technical aspects of cell phones for

the WHO study…He doesn't see scientific results, he

does not participate in scientific meetings."

A chart we produce for Krewski shows the same

names and links popping up frequently.

"I can see how you could get that sort

of perception there may be something leading to some sort

of complications here, but if you actually look at the roles

of the organizations and agencies that you’ve got on

your chart and what they’re actually doing, the industry,

clearly, both in Canada and internationally, is hands off,"

Krewski says.

But it wasn't that clear in Europe. The scientists

at IARC say the European cellphone industry did try to negotiate

more influence over that end of the study.

"So we wanted not only to avoid any bias,

but we didn't want to get any involvement with an industry

which then doesn't like the results and tries all kinds of

things," IARC's Peter Kleihues said.

Kleihues told us industry reps came knocking

as the negotiations on the study were happening.

"They wanted to give us the money. They

said 'enlarge, do more, you will be happy because we are so

much interested, we are under pressure, we would like a bigger

and better study,' and we said 'no, it’s not possible,

we can’t accept the money.'"

"Yeah, basically we refused until a contract

was drawn up that ensured we had no strings
attached," research scientist Elisabeth Cardis said.

That means there is still industry funding in Europe, but
a third party administers the money. In Canada, the industry
money goes to Dan Krewski's centre.

Cardis
adds the connections involved with the

Canadian part of the study don't seem to be a conflict of

interest to her. But her boss — IARC chief Paul Kleihues

— does seem concerned about our findings.

"Well, I think this is a reason for concern.

Industry doesn't give you a free lunch usually. That means

industry expects something back for any money they do, and

I think we must look into this. It's a matter of concern and

we must find out if it's sufficient reason to exclude that

branch of the study or not."

Kleihues goes on to say that as far as he can

see, the Canadian part of the study appears to have been set

up carefully, to follow the rules.

As we kept digging, we discovered that not only

does the Canadian cellphone lobby pay for a chunk of Krewski's

research at the University of Ottawa, it also has an impact

on his salary. We learned that the CWTA money unleashes government

money that goes towards Krewski's salary. Krewski says these

arrangements are all above board.

The head of IARC - Paul Kleihues told us he

was reviewing for possible conflicts of interest the contracts

people like Krewski had signed. He said no decisions or changes

would be made until an IARC meeting in mid-December.

As for the study itself — it won't be

complete for a couple of years. So get ready for another long

wait before we get any definitive answer on that old riddle

over cellphones and cancer.

All cellphones in Canada meet the basic radiation

safety guidelines. But anyone concerned about exposure can

take a couple of steps to limit it: