Theinof the right ear that hitwas caused by the useof the phone. Theconfirmed theof Judge professional sickness pension for the “abnormal” use of the mobile phone, And in the grounds of the sentence, issued on 3 December, the college also reiterates the suspicions on the impartiality of some ‘reassuring’ studies : “A good part of the scientific literature that excludes the carcinogenicity of the exposure radio frequency (…) is in a position of conflict of interest, which is not always declared, “write the judges of the Labor Sectionand, based on the conclusions of the consultantsand, appointed to reanalyze the evidence already weighed by the ctu of the judge of Ivrea,Therepresent a historical verdict, because for the first time a worker has obtained twojudgments in similar cases and the request for compensation by Romeo – defended by lawyers Stefano, Renatoand Chiaraof the Ambrosio & Commodo studio – during 2019 it was also accepted by the. The Turin Court of Appeal has no doubts about Romeo’s case after having the new expertsall the: Marino and D’Errico, the sentence reads, have provided “solid elements for affirming abetween the exposure of the persontofrom a mobile phone and thethat arose”.According to the judges, in fact, “there is a scientific covering law that supports the assertion of theaccording‘more likely than not'”. And in theis “believed that” with “criterion oflogical” it is possible to “admit anbetween the prolonged andworkingto radio frequency emitted by mobile phone and the disease reported” by Romeo all ‘Inail.But the consultants and the sentence go further. In fact, on the quality ofon the relationship between tumors and radio frequencies, the consultants write: “A large part of the scientific literature that excludes carcinogenicity (…) is in a position of conflict of interest, which is not always declared,” they write. In that case, they specify, “it is believed thatshould be givento studies”. A setting that is shared by the Court of Appeal “since it is clear that the investigation, and the conclusions, ofgiveof reliability than thoseorat least in part, by subjects interested in the outcome of the studies “.Romeo, at the time of the events, was a Telecom technician and spent between 2 andon his cell phone for work: in essence, calculating an average of 4 hours a day, he spent 840 hours per year using the mobile phone for an “estimated total time (…) in theinterval between 1995 and 2010 equal to. And at the time, notes the Court, “there were no tools that would allow you to avoidof the cell phone with your face, such asor earphones”. In the following years he then developed ain the right ear, the side where the cellphone was used.

The lawyer: “Confirmation on denial studies”

“What interested us most from the legal point of view – explains the lawyer Stefano Bertone – was the confirmation that the ‘denial studies’ financed by the industry could not go to found, influencing him , the reasoning of court consultants in cases involving mobile telephony ”. The Court of Appeal, adds the lawyer, “gives us reason with a concept as simple as it is decisive: since the industry has an interest in the outcome of studies, those who work for you or with your money express less reliable opinions than those who do research without profit “.

Criticisms also for the Higher Institute of Health

The consultants of the Court of Appeal also criticize the study published last August by the Higher Institute of Health, for which the prolonged use of mobile phones “is not associated” with the increased risk of tumors . In their opinion, the study “ inappropriately uses data on the trend of the incidence of brain tumors” and “does not take into account recent experimental studies on animals” nor “has issuedvmore stringent recommendations on the limits of exposure to radio frequencies, in especially for children and teenagers, “although he says he is uncertain about the effects associated with intense use at that age .