[Jurisprudence on occupational radiofrequency diseases]

In the last decade, at the conclusion of some civil proceedings concerning appeals against INAIL (the Italian workers' compensation authority), some Italian courts have recognised the occupational origin of tumours in workers exposed to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) emitted by wireless phones, despite the fact that a causal role of electromagnetic fields in oncogenesis has not been demonstrated. In some cases, workers' exposures were combined with those due to other RF EMF sources or with exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF MFs). For the sake of completeness, the case of exposure of a worker to ELF MFs only is also considered. These judgements have been widely covered by the media which, on the contrary, have virtually ignored those in which the causal link between occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and tumours has not been recognised. The author of this communication is aware of two of these "negative" judgements in that he was, in both cases, one of the court-appointed expert witnesses. A key point to understand the scientific bases for the Judges' decisions is how the IARC classifications of ELF magnetic fields (ELF MFs) and radio frequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMFs) as "possibly carcinogenic to humans", and more generally the body of scientific evidence on electromagnetic fields and tumours, have been taken into account in the judgements and court- appointed expert witnesses' reports. The 2009 judgement of the Court of Appeal of Brescia preceded the IARC classification of radio frequency electromagnetic fields in 2011. The judgement of Brescia was confirmed by the Court of Cassation in 2012, but since the Court of Cassation decides on the legitimacy of the judgements without entering into their merits, the fact that this decision was taken after the IARC classification is irrelevant. All other judgements, subsequent to the publication of the IARC monographs, cited the IARC classifications. The bases for the two "negative" judgements of the Courts of Cremona and Milan were as follows: 1) when an agent is classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans", a causal link between exposure and cancer has not been generally demonstrated, therefore 2) it is not possible to conclude that a tumour was "more likely than not" (as required in civil litigation (4) ), caused by the agent in question whatever the worker's level of exposure. On the contrary, the court appointed expert witnesses' report on the Ivrea proceeding states that "in the present case there is an association between a rare tumour and an exposure as rare as the use since 1995 of high-emission cellular telephony. The rarity of the circumstance is indicative of a causal association". This and other arguments underlying the "positive" judgements.