Loading...
sr-061411-13d13-D June 14, 2011 Council Meeting: June 14, 2011 Santa Monica, California CITY CLERK'S OFFICE -MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Councilmember McKeown Date: June 14, 2011 13-D: 12equest of Councilmember McKeown that the Council direct staff, in light of the recent World Health Organization classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogenic hazard, to evaluate appropriate public protective measures, including the possibility of advocating with the state or federal government for warning labels on cell phones at point of sale. `~ ~~ t~" 13-D June 14, 2011 1 June 1, 2011 Council Meeting: June 14, 2011 Santa Monica, California CITY CLERK'S OFFICE -MEMORANDUM To: City Council From: Councilmember McKeown Date: June 14; 2011 13-D: Request of Councilmember INcl6eown that the Council direct staff, in light of the recent World Health Organization classification of cell phone radiation as a possible carcinogenic hazard, to evaluate appropriate public protective measures, including the possibility of advocating with the state or federal government for warning labels on cell phones at point of sale. June 14, 2011 1 WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk - CNN.COm S/31/11 1:59 PM '=D 0~: LJ 3' I INTERNAiIn4AL ~' MEXICO ~ ~ Log in 6<t edt on prrterence 6 ~ SeaRCH; Fis e i dco I se'n'se ~ _ a ~ :?nr~.< ~ n `c., ~ Jus. ~_ ~ .~ Ln r`I ~ ,ec6 ~ HeaIN ~ a^g ~ r-+e. ~ Cpin ., i ~ .apori ~ a -; ~ apans ~ ~.. WH`O: Cell phone use can increase -10J"S`~ble cancer risk Recommend.: 21200 recommends(ions. Sign Up to see I'~ what your friends recommend. By Danielle Dellorto, CNN May 31, 2011 1:49 p.m. EDT STORY HIGHLIGHTS (CNN) -- Radiation from cell phones Can possibly Cause cancer, ire is the ~ame'harard~ according to the Worltl Health Organization. The agency now lists categpry as kad, engine mobile phone use in the same "carcinogenic hazartl" category as exhaust and cnloroiorm lead, engine exhaust and chloroform. Untll mw, WHO has said no atlveree health eRMa have Before tts announcement Tuesday, WHO hatl assured consumers been established that no adverse health effects had been established. The cell Phone industry mainmios that (here is no conclasme evidence or ganger A team of 31 scientists from 14 wuntdes, inclutling the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." What that means is they found some evidence of increase in glioma and acoustic neuroma brain cancer far mobile phone users, but have not been able to draw conclusions for other types of cancers "The biggest problem we have is that we know most environmental factors take several decades of exposure before we really see the wnsequencas," saitl Dr. Kedh Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Las Angeles. The Type of radiation coming out of a cell phone is called non-ionizing. It is not like an X-ray, but more like a very low-powered microwave oven. "What microwave mtlia[ion does in most simplistic terms is similar to what happens to food in microwaves, essentially cooking the brain," Black saitl. "SO in addition r ,A E OUR RED COATS EXPERT SERVICE NewsPulse Moat popular stodes Nght crow Is cell phone rstliation a un<er hazartlT E9YPtian ganersl atlmits 'virginity ehecka' LeAnn Rimes: I'm not'scary skinny' Casey Anthony frlal enters 2ntl week 75 bodies recoveretl from Air France crash &pbre the news catty NewsPulse n http://www.cnacom/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html?hpt=hp_tl Page 1 of 6 csli abnno nme'r.=sinty ca~ci,=pcen' WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk - CNN.com ro leacmg ro a Developmenr or cancer anD rumors, mere could be a whole host of other effects like cognitive memory function, since the memory temporal lobes are where we hold our cell phones." Wireless industry responded to Tuesday's announcement saying it "does not mean cell phones cause cancer." CTIA-The Wireless Association added that WHO researchers "did not conduct any new research, but rather reviewed published studies." RELATED TOPICS Smattphonas Consumer Electronics Cancer The European Environmental Agency has pushed for more studies, saying cell phones could 6e as big a public ,,. health risk as smoking, asbestos antl leaded gasoline. The heatl of a prominent cancer-research institute at the University of Pittsburgh sent a memo to all employees urging them to limtt cell phone use hecause of a possible risk of cancer. 'When you look at cancer development -- particularty brain cancer -- ii takes a long time to develop. I think it is a good itlea to give the public some sort of warning that long-tens exposure to radiation from your cell phone mould possibly cause cancer," said Dr. Henry Lai, research professor in bioengineering at University of Washington who has studied mdiatipn for more than 30 years. ,;~;vic6uiltler HaalNnre Juba Salea antl Marke4nB Jobs FlnancNeM Duiek Job Search !Keywords ';City °Jdb type ! State-'i more epVOns a 5/31/11 1:59 PM Results from the largest international study on cell phones and cancer was released in 2010. It showed participants in the study who used a cell phone for 10 years or more had doubled the rate of brain glioma, a type of tumor. To Sate, there have been no long- term studies on the effects of cell phone usage among children. $p0vSO1a °i~ Asbertos Treabaenl - "Chiltlren's skulls and scalps are thinner. So the radiation can nsbcsloa e.posore taro for .wereas Exprriea«a ssbu~os aaomoys penetrate tleeper into the brain of children and young adults. Their '"'"'"'"`solbeaoma-atlomey.rem cells are at a dividing taster rate, so the impact of radiation can be I Caomr Centers O[Amedce much larger."said Black of Cedars-Sinai Medical Center ,~az wra roarer moo aces Anon cmrzr Trevmem opaoos. w~..ca,~Cemzr.eoia In February, a study by researchers at the National Institutes of L1°g fH°cw'" Health, revealed radiation emittetl after'ust 50 minutes on a mobile comceormma cast fuoa mro.~aaaoa Fina om ayoa yaaury 1 ,„„.mlaa.~aaom phone increases the activity in brein cells. The effects of brain activity being artificially stimulated are still unknown. Neurosurgeon and CNN chief medical correspondent Dc Sanjay Gupta says Tuesday's announcement, "dealt a blow to those who have long said, There is no possible mechanism for cell phones to cause cancer.' By classifying cell phones as a possible carcinogen, they also seem to be tacitly admitting a mechanism could exist " Manufacturers of many popular cell phones already warn consumers to keep their tlevice away from their body. The Apple iPhone 4 safety manual says users' radiation exposure should not exceed FCC guidelines: "When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 millimeters (S/8 inch) away from the body." BlackBerry Bold advises users to, "keep the BiackBerry device at least 0.98 inch (25 millimeters) from your hotly when the Blackberry device is transmitting" Recommend '. 21200 recommendations. Sign Up [o see what your _._.... friends recommend. FOLLOW TMS TOPIC http://www:rnn.mm/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html?hpt=hp_tl Page 2 of 6 9f~~rY~~t~~~ ~l~~ fir ~rC r~ ~~~r ~~ ~~ rl~i ~i~~l .- PRESS RELEASE N°208 31 May 2011 9ARC CLASSIFIES RA®1®FREQUE)JCY ELECTRCMAGFIETIC FIELDS AS FCiSSIBLY CAI2CINOGEIVIC TC HUMAidS Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 --The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly earcino¢enie to humans (Group 26), based on an increased risk for lig~ a malignant type of brain cancers, associated with wireless phone use. Background Over the last few years, there has been mounting concern about the possibility of adverse health effects resulting from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by wireless communication devices. The number of mobile phone subscriptions is estimated at s billion elobally. From Mav 24-31 2011, a Workin¢ Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries has been meetine at IARC in Lvon, France, to assess the potential carcinoeenic hazards from exposure to radiafreauencv electromagnetic fields. These assessments will be published as Volume 102 of the IARC Monographs, which will be the fifth volume in this series to focus on physical agents, after Volume 51 (Solar Radiation), Volume 75 and Volume 78 do ionizing radiation (X-rays, gamma-rays, neutrons, radio-nuclides), and Volume 80 on non-ionizine radiation )extremely low-freauencv electromagnetic fields). The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed the possibility that these exposures might induce long-term health effects, in particular an increased risk for cancer. This has relevance for public health, particularly for users of mobile phones, as the number of users is large and growing, particularly among young adults and children. The IARC Monograph Working Group discussed and evaluated the available literature on the following exposure categories involving radiofrequency electromagnetic fields: - occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves; - environmental exposures associated with transmission of signals for radio, television and wireless telecommunication; and - personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones. International experts shared the complex task of tackling the exposure data, the stud'ees of cancer in humans, the studies of cancer in experimental animals, and the mechanistic and other relevant data. ~ 237 913 new cases of brain cancers (all types combined) occurred around the world in 2008 (gliomas represent 2/3 of these). Source: Globocan 2008 Page 2 BA6ZC CLASSIFIES RADI®FREQUENCY ELECTIZOINAG~IEi'1C FIELDS AS P®SSISLY CAI2CINO~EtdIC T® WU(VIAIVS Results The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited' among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inodequate3 to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above. was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10-year period). Conclusions Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 28 classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk." "Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long- term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting. " The Working Group considered hundreds of scientific articles; the complete list will be published in the Monograph. It is noteworthy to mention that several recent in-press scientific articles4 resulting from the Interphone study were made available to the working group shortly before it was due to convene, reflecting their acceptance for publication at that time, and were included in the evaluation. A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncoloev in its July 1 issue, and in a few days online. ~ 'Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': Apositive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. ''Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity': The available studies are of insufFcient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a con[lusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available. a. 'Acoustic neuroma risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case- controlstudy' (the Interphone Study Group, in Cancer Epidemiology, in press) b, 'Estimation of RF energy absorbed in the brain from mobile phones in the Interphone study' (Cardis et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press) c. 'Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones -results from five Interphone countries' (Cardis et al., Occupational and Environmental Medicine, in press) d. 'Location of Gliomas in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use: ACase-Case and Case-Specular Analysis' (American Journal of Epidemiology, May 24, 2011. [Epub ahead of print]. L4RC 150 Cours Aitien Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDER 08, France - TeI: +33 (O)4 72:7384 85 Fazr+33 (Oj4 72 7385 75 ©IARC;2071-All F~igfits!Reserved Page 3 IA12C CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUEIVCY ELECTROiV1AGNE7'IG FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO h1Ui~ANS For more information, please contact Dr Kurt Straif IARC Monoeraphs Section. at+33 472 738 511, or straif@iarc.fr: Dr Robert Baan IARC Monoeraphs Section. at+33 472 738 6s9, or Baan@iarc.fr; or Nicolas Gaudin IARC Communications Grouo. at comCp~iarc.fr (+33 472 738 478) Link to the audio file posted shortly after the briefing: http://terrance.who.int/mediacentrelaudio/press briefines/ About IARC The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization. Its mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control. The Agency is involved in both epidemioloeical and laboratory research and disseminates scientific information through publications. meetines, courses, and fellowships. If you wish your name to be removed from our press release e-mailing list, please write to com@iarc.fr. Nicolas Gaudin, Ph.D. Head, IARC Communications InternationalAeencvforResearch on Cancer World Health Organization 150, tours Albert-Thomas 69008 Lyon France Email com@iarc.fr http://www.iarc.fr/ IARC;750 Cours AI6ert Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEOEX O8, Frence - Tei: +33 (0)4 7273 84 85 - Fax:+33 (0~4 72 73:85 75 ©IARC 2611-Ail RiahtsReserved. Page 4 IARC CLASSIFIES DI®FREQUERICY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSISLI' CARCINOGENIC TO I-IUMAIVS ASOUT THE IARC MONOGRAPHS What are the IARC Monoeraphs? The IARC Monographs identify environmental factors that can increase the risk of human cancer. These include chemicals, complex mixtures, occupational exposures, physical and biological agents, and lifestyle factors. National health agencies use this information as scientific support for their actions to prevent exposure to potential carcinogens. Interdisciplinary working groups of expert scientists review the published studies and evaluate the weight of the evidence that an agent can increase the risk of cancer. The principles, procedures, and scientific criteria that guide the evaluations are described in the Preamble to the IARC Monographs. Since 1971, more than 900 agents have been evaluated, of which approximately 400 have been identified as carcinogenic or potentially earcinogenic to humans. Definitions Group 1: The agent is carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be placed in this category when evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is less than sufficient but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence in exposed humans that the agent acts through a relevant mechanism of carcinogenicity. Group 2. This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 28 (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data. The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic. Group 2A: The agent is orobobly carcinogenic to humans. This category is used when there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some cases, an agent may be classified in this category when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and strong evidence that the carcinogenesis is mediated by a mechanism that also operates in humans. Exceptionally, an agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. An agent may be assigned to this category if it clearly belongs, based on mechanistic considerations, to a class of agents for which one or more members have been classified in Group 1 or Group 2A. IARC,150 Cours Albert Thomas, 89372 Lyort CEDER 08, France - Tei: +33 (Olq 72, 738485- Fax:+33 (O)4 72 73'85 75 ©IARC2611 -All RiahtsReurved. Page 5 IARC CLASSIFIES DIO~REOl1ENGY ELECTROMAGNETIC PiELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCiNOGEP~IC TO Nl1MANS Group 2B: The agent is possibly careinoaenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data. Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals. Exceptionally, agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity inexperimental animals does not operate in humans. Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category. An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non-carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations. Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinoeenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lock of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate. evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group. Definitions of evidence. as used in BARC Monoeraohs for studies in humans The evidence relevant to carcinogenicity from studies in humans is classified into one of the following categories:: Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity: The Working Group considers that a causal relationship has been established between exposure to the agent and human cancer. That is, a positive relationship has been observed between the exposure and cancer in studies in which chance, bias and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence. A statement that there is sufficient evidence is followed by a separate sentence that identifies the target organ(s) or tissue(s) where an increased risk of cancer was observed in humans. Identification of a specific target organ or tissue does not preclude the possibility that the agent may cause cancer at other sites. IARC, .750 Cours Albait Thomas, 69372 Lyon CEDEx 08, France - 7eI: +33 (O)4 7293 84 85 - Fax:+33 (Oyi 72 73.85 75 ©IARC 2677-All RidhfsReserved. Page 6 IARC CLASSIFIES 12ADIOFI2EOUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: Apositive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available. Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full range of levels of exposure that humans are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and any studied cancer at any observed level of exposure. The results from these studies alone or combined should have narrow confidence intervals with an upper limit close to the null value (e.g. a relative risk of 1.0). Bias and confounding should be ruled out with reasonable confidence, and the studies should have an adequate length of follow-up. A conclusion of evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity is inevitably limited to the cancer sites, conditions and levels of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition, the possibility of a very small risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded. In some instances, the above categories may be used to classify the degree of evidence related to carcinogenicity in specific organs or tissues. IARC,150 Cours Albert Thomas, 89372 Lyon CEDEX08, France - FeI: +33 (0)4 72 73 84 85 -Fax' +3310yF 72 73:85 75 ©tARC 2011 -AIV RiatitsReservetl. Page 5 IARC CLASSIFIES Di®FREQUENCY ELECTR®IyIAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY GARCINOGENiC TO hiUli~ANS Group 26: The agent is aossib/v carcinoaenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. It may also be used when there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. In some instances, an agent for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans and less than sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals together with supporting evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data may be placed in this group. An agent may be classified in this category solely on the basis of strong evidence from mechanistic and other relevant data. Group 3: The agent is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans. This category is used most commonly for agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans and inadequate or limited in experimental animals. Exceptionally, agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans. Agents that do not fall into any other group are also placed in this category. An evaluation in Group 3 is not a determination of non-carcinogenicity or overall safety. It often means that further research is needed, especially when exposures are widespread or the cancer data are consistent with differing interpretations. Group 4: The agent is probably not carcinogenic to humans. This category is used for agents for which there is evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in humans and in experimental animals. In some instances, agents for which there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in humans but evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, consistently and strongly supported by a broad range of mechanistic and other relevant data, may be classified in this group. Definitions of evidence. as used in IARC Monograahs for studies in humans The evidence relevant to carcinogenicity from studies in humans is classified into one of the following categories: Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity: The Working Group considers that a causal relationship has been established between exposure to the agent and human cancer. That is, a positive relationship has been observed between the exposure and cancer in studies in which chance, bias and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence. A statement that there is sufficient evidence is followed by a separate sentence that identifies the target organ(s) or tissue(s) where an increased risk of cancerwas observed in humans. Identification of a specific target organ or tissue does not preclude the possibility that the agent may cause cancer at other sites. IARC, 150 Coure Alheif7homas, 69372 Lyon CEDEX08, France-Tei:+33 (0)4 72 73 84 85- Fax;'+33 (0~ 72 73$575 .. ®IARC 20tt-Alt Riahts:Reserved. Page 6 IARC CLA$SIFIE~ ®I®FRECIUENCY ELECTR®~AGtVETIC FIELU3 AS P®SSIi3LY CARCINL)GEIUIC TG HUNIATdS Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available. Evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity: There are several adequate studies covering the full range of levels of exposure that humans are known to encounter, which are mutually consistent in not showing a positive association between exposure to the agent and any studied cancer at any observed level of exposure. The results from these studies alone or combined should have narrow confidence intervals with an upper limit close to the null value (e.g. a relative risk of 1.0). Bias and confounding should be ruled out with reasonable confidence, and the studies should have an adequate length of follow-up. A conclusion of evidence suggesting lack of carcinogenicity is inevitably limited to the cancer sites, conditions and levels of exposure, and length of observation covered by the available studies. In addition, the possibility of a very small risk at the levels of exposure studied can never be excluded. In some instances, the above categories may be used to classify the degree of evidence related to carcinogenicity inspecific organs or tissues. IARC "]60 Coucs A16ad Thomas, 69372 Lyron CEo~ O8, Frence- Tei: +33 (0J4 72,2384 85- Fax:.33 (O)4 Z2 1385 75 ©IARC 20YY -AI! RiahtsReserved.