The Wheels of Justice

Rolling, grinding and creaking, the cogs have gradually propelled the wheels forwards to the point where a decision has been made, again. It’s a story worth following as it raises serious questions about how our health can be damaged, and the ways in which scientific evidence has been ‘influenced’.

Back in 2017 an Italian court ruled that frequent use of a mobile phone had caused the benign, but severely disabling, neurinoma of the acoustic nerve of Roberto Romeo. The court’s decision was based on studies which showed that the risk of head tumours was significantly increased in people who talked on their phones for just 30 minutes a day, over a 10 year period.

Roberto Romeo’s case was against INAIL, a workplace accident insurance agency, and when judgement was found against them, they appealed. The case had already rolled for several years, now it rolled on; again.

Then, in a landmark case in December 2019, the Court of Appeal of Turin confirmed that the findings of the first court of appeal were correct. The court observed that there was:

‘strong evidence to assert a causal role between the complainant’s occupational exposure, his exposure to radiation from mobile phones and the disease that occurred.’

So, there we have it. Scientific opinion is that the use of a mobile phone over a 10 year period for 30 minutes a day, increases your chances of developing a head tumour. Then, in two appeals, Italian courts ruled that in the case of Romeo v. INAIL a head tumour was caused by the use of a mobile phone.

But what about evidence being ‘influenced’?

The December tribunal also recognised that the evidence of telecoms funded scientists or members of ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) is less reliable. In other words, telecoms gives money to scientists so their work is judged to be less valuable than independent scientists.

But, hang on, isn’t ICNIRP supposed to be independent, how could it be ‘influenced’? Yes, it is, but this is what the court said about evidence from ICNIRP:

‘the authors of the studies indicated by INAIL, who are mentioned by name, are members of ICNIRP and/or SCENIHR, which have received, directly or indirectly, funding from industry.’

In short, this stinks. To try and win an appeal against a man whose brain tumour was caused by using a mobile phone, the defence quoted scientific studies from an independent organisation which had received telecoms industry funding, so it was now judged to be less trustworthy.

This will probably roll on, again. It’s clearly not in the interests of the telecoms industry to allow the matter to be resolved, there is too much money at stake here.

Just a few things to think about when you next hold your phone to your ear.