RINGING UNTRUE?: A new report has found no increase in the incidence of brain tumors in four European countries since mobile phones became wide spread, but some in the research community still think the the devices may prove harmful in the long run.
Image: ISTOCKPHOTO/CSAKISTI
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
As cell phones and smart phones take over more communication, information and entertainment functions, concerns about their possible role in causing brain cancer are buzzing on the airwaves.
This year alone, several studies and review articles have posited tentative links between radiation produced by cellular phones and the development of brain tumors.
A team of researchers in northern Europe, however, has now combed through three decades of cancer registries and found no increase in the rate of brain tumors in the five to 10 years following widespread cell phone adoption in that region.
"We did not detect any clear change in the long-term time trends in the incidence of brain tumors from 1998 to 2003 in any subgroup," the researchers wrote in the paper, which was published online Thursday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI). The study looked for two of the most common types of brain tumors—gliomas, which are often malignant, and meningiomas, which are more often benign—in people ages 20 to 79 in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden between 1974 and 2003. The researchers found that the frequency of these cancers was steady throughout the decades despite mobile use becoming common by the mid-1990s.
Even as cell phone use has soared worldwide, not every cell chatterer encounters the same exposure. Many smart phones, for example, put out higher levels of radiation, and the use of wired headsets can decrease the amount of energy emanated near the head. Nevertheless, says lead study author Isabelle Deltour of the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, "The Nordic countries are a good model for studying the association" due to broad early adoption of the technology and thorough medical records.
A lack of correlation in these countries or elsewhere, however, doesn't clear the air of doubt—even in the researchers' minds. "The scientific literature is unsettled right now about the association between mobile phones and brain tumors," Deltour says.
Part of the trouble in tracking down a connection between brain tumors and cell phones is the poor understanding of cancers themselves. "The etiology of brain tumors is largely unknown," Deltour says. Some people may have an increased genetic risk for brain tumors, but, she says, "Mostly, we don't know why people get them."
Deltour and others also note that many cancers can take more than a decade to take hold.
"I don't think five to 10 years does cover it," says David Carpenter, a professor of environmental health sciences and biomedical sciences at the University at Albany, State University of New York. "Brain cancers are slow growing, so the idea that you would be able to detect something after five years would be surprising," he says. "Time will tell, but likely the biggest increase will be after 20 years."
Many who study radiation's effects on the cellular level prefer to err on the side of caution. Martin Blank, an associate professor of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University Medical Center's College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, notes cell phones are most likely having some impact on biological processes. Exposing cells to radiation, for one, increases their stress responses, he says. Both he and Carpenter endorsed a report [pdf] this August that advocated greater caution in the use of cellular technology.
Although the new JNCI study did not analyze individual cell phone usage—preferring instead to take a broader look at the population at large—other research has examined subgroups of cell phone users to try to discern different trends among more frequent use. Even these approaches, however, can be problematic, as Carpenter, who is also the director of the University at Albany's Institute for Health and the Environment, points out. Study subject's recall bias about how much one had talked on their mobile device can sway results.
Solving this dilemma, however, will require firmer data, such as records from cellular providers, Carpenter says. And industry cooperation, he notes, has not yet been mandated.
One forthcoming analysis, from the long-term international study known as INTERPHONE, promises to provide new data on tumor incidence and cell phone usage. "I think we are all looking forward to this new report from INTERPHONE," Carpenter says. Although the research phase has been wrapped up, the report has not yet been published. But many aren't holding out hope that it will end the debate once and for all. "We're probably 10 years away from having an answer," Carpenter says.
Meanwhile—unlike Blank, who says he doesn't have a cell phone (or any other wireless devices)—Carpenter confesses that he does have a BlackBerry, which he says he uses occasionally. "Common sense says that some caution is wise," he concludes.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentIf you would compare cell phones that emit radiation to others that emit radition, like jobs in natural gas drilling, nuclear plants, or the rocks under your house that emit radiation...which is the safest to be around over the longest period of time? People are not going to give up their cell phones, so why don't cell phone manufacturing companys start insulating them and make them where you cannot hold them up to your head...using bluetooth should minimize or stop the radition exposure.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a bet peeve of mine . . so mind the rant
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe word "Radiation" is the problem. People see that and freak and "know" it is bad . . not really understanding what it means and that the only reason this planet is alive is because of that dreaded evil radiation.
Cell phones are extremely low powered and are not in the frequency range that excites water (heat), and is FAR from being ionizing radiation. So the question is what mechanism COULD cell phones employ to effect human tissue in a meaningful manor (at that power and frequency)??
At best they only state generally that "Exposing cells to radiation can increases their stress responses". . . Not a very hard statement as you can substitute the word radiation with just about anything else and it would be true (heat, Cold, impact, just about any chemical known etc) Anything beyond a perfect base state will "stress" the cell to some extent. So what are they saying ?? stop exercising because it stresses and even damages your muscles? don't go out side because it stresses your(hot/cold) . . Stress is a norm and even necessary for life. and like anything else too much or too little is dangerous. Also stress <> cancer. So how do they go from undefined stress to brain cancer?
Also there is allot of information out there on exposure to "radiation" of various frequencies and power levels, all showing much much higher power (orders of magnitude more) is needed to have any effect and that mostly that ends up as heating (which alone does not cause cancer) . . go higher or much much longer and other effect may show (this is documented) up but again the order of magnitude difference is extreme.
People need to get away from thinking binary (good or bad) because the world does not work that way everything is a mix. Take alcohol . . it is a poison . . yes a very reliable poison, (a bacterial waste product). Small amounts are not noticed, larger amounts are dealt with quickly and may even have beneficial properties, even larger amounts start poisoning and having effects, more . . massive complications and death . . this is not black and white, we drink a small amount a poison for low level side effects?! and we are ok with it. why can't we put other substances/energies into a similar framework and note the changes over the scale? "Radiation" is good AND bad and everything in-between.
In the end there is no evidence to conclude that the radiation from a normal cell phone can, let alone does have any effect on our physiology. Is it good to look? sure, especially if the power/frequency changes. But it is not like there is no information on this either and it is some how all new! and it only effects cell phones? Nonsense.
When I cross the border from Oregon into California, I am obliged to attach a bluetooth earpiece to my head and leave it there while driving. How this improves road safety, I am not sure. I see very few locals with both hands on the wheel, so how much difference it makes (particularly when I see a great number controlling the wheel with their wrists while they text away), but I do wonder if there are studies on the risks possible with wireless headsets. A wired headset would make more sense, but it's problematic finding one that fits this cellphone, thus I'm stuck with this thing in my ear. Literally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thispsaltseller:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you are driving just turn your mobile phone off, no more problems.
If you believe you are indispensable, just check in at the local asylum for the insane.
So we need to use a earphone or a bluetooth earphone to take the call, and maybe we are best to use our left ear to listen the call
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCell Phones and Brain Cancerthe jury is still out
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to headlines trumpeted around the world, cell phones are safe. This reassuring conclusion rests on an analysis of trends in brain cancer in Scandinavian countries up to 2003 which did NOT tie these trends in any way to actual patterns of use of cell phones.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091203/cellphones_091203/20091203?hub=TopStoriesV2
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/12/03/no-increase-in-brain-tumors-seen-from-cell-phones.html
In fact, in Sweden, Norway and Finland, about half of all persons had cell phones in 2000. It would be unreasonable to expect to see any general population effect from such phone use in such a short period of time. Scientists know that brain cancer can take a decade or longer to develop in adults. In the case of the Hiroshima bombing that ended World War Two, brain cancers associated with that one time massive exposure to radiation did not become evident until forty years later.
The authors of this work published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute actually are much more balanced than the headline writers. We all recognize the tremendous positive role that phones are playing around the world today. But, their safety, and their impact on the developing brain, remains a matter of grave concern that merits serious research and will not be resolved by spinning limited studies such as this one.
The authors of this analysis of brain cancer in adults in Northern Europe note that their findings could simply mean that their study did not follow people for long enough period of time and that their study did not determine or focus on those individuals who had used cell phones the most for the longest, especially young adults. Instead, their analysis solely reported on the trend in this one site of cancer.
A number of researchers who have looked at more detailed studies on brain cancer and cell phone use have reached far different conclusions. Only after 10 or more years of very heavy mobile phone use does a risk of brain cancer become evident. Prof. Lennart Hardell of Sweden has found that those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults. In this recent study of the entire population, very few persons are likely to have been heavy users of cell phones for more than a decade and even fewer will have done so since adolescence.
Given the limited networks available at the time that this Scandinavian study began, and the high cost of earlier phones, proportionally few people have been heavy users for a long period of time. To conclude that the absence of a clear trend of increased brain tumors in Scandinavia means that there will be no such trend in the future is wishful thinking that endangers all of us.
Recent studies by scientists in many different nations have found that radiofrequency signals can directly damage DNA without producing any noticeable change in temperature, and can produce cancer-inducing free radicals, proteins known to be tied with mutation, and memory loss in both animals and humans. (see www.environmentalhealthtrust.org for more details) Given the dramatic increase in mobile phone use in the past few years, it is foolish to assume that their safety has been established. The technologies are changing rapidly. We need a major international research program to evaluate their impact on health, especially how they affect the brain of the young.
Israel, France, China, Russia, Finland, Scotland, the U.K., and the European Commission have all issued various warnings to limit the use of cell phones by children. The brain of a child doubles in the first two years of life and is not fully mature and protected until the early twenties.
Four billion people today are using cell phones and many of them are under the age of twenty. In truth the jury is out on the long term impacts of cell phones on our health. There is no scientific basis to conclude otherwise.
cell phones used while driving increase accidents, and should generally be avoided, excepting during emergencies
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCell Phones and Brain Cancer—the jury is still out
According to headlines trumpeted around the world, cell phones are safe. This reassuring conclusion rests on an analysis of trends in brain cancer in Scandinavian countries up to 2003 which did NOT tie these trends in any way to actual patterns of use of cell phones.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091203/cellphones_091203/20091203?hub=TopStoriesV2
http://health.usnews.com/articles/health/healthday/2009/12/03/no-increase-in-brain-tumors-seen-from-cell-phones.html
In fact, in Sweden, Norway and Finland, about half of all persons had cell phones in 2000. It would be unreasonable to expect to see any general population effect from such phone use in such a short period of time. Scientists know that brain cancer can take a decade or longer to develop in adults. In the case of the Hiroshima bombing that ended World War Two, brain cancers associated with that one time massive exposure to radiation did not become evident until forty years later.
The authors of this work published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute actually are much more balanced than the headline writers. We all recognize the tremendous positive role that phones are playing around the world today. But, their safety, and their impact on the developing brain, remains a matter of grave concern that merits serious research and will not be resolved by spinning limited studies such as this one.
The authors of this analysis of brain cancer in adults in Northern Europe note that their findings could simply mean that their study did not follow people for long enough period of time and that their study did not determine or focus on those individuals who had used cell phones the most for the longest, especially young adults. Instead, their analysis solely reported on the trend in this one site of cancer.
A number of researchers who have looked at more detailed studies on brain cancer and cell phone use have reached far different conclusions. Only after 10 or more years of very heavy mobile phone use does a risk of brain cancer become evident. Prof. Lennart Hardell of Sweden has found that those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults. In this recent study of the entire population, very few persons are likely to have been heavy users of cell phones for more than a decade and even fewer will have done so since adolescence.
Given the limited networks available at the time that this Scandinavian study began, and the high cost of earlier phones, proportionally few people have been heavy users for a long period of time. To conclude that the absence of a clear trend of increased brain tumors in Scandinavia means that there will be no such trend in the future is wishful thinking that endangers all of us.
Recent studies by scientists in many different nations have found that radiofrequency signals can directly damage DNA without producing any noticeable change in temperature, and can produce cancer-inducing free radicals, proteins known to be tied with mutation, and memory loss in both animals and humans. (see www.environmentalhealthtrust.org for more details) Given the dramatic increase in mobile phone use in the past few years, it is foolish to assume that their safety has been established. The technologies are changing rapidly. We need a major international research program to evaluate their impact on health, especially how they affect the brain of the young.
Israel, France, China, Russia, Finland, Scotland, the U.K., and the European Commission have all issued various warnings to limit the use of cell phones by children. The brain of a child doubles in the first two years of life and is not fully mature and protected until the early twenties.
Four billion people today are using cell phones and many of them are under the age of twenty. In truth the jury is out on the long term impacts of cell phones on our health. There is no scientific basis to conclude otherwise.
Let's get real. My husband has a malignant glioma from his long term cell phone use. Since I went public testifying to Congress I have "met" scores of others. Some have already DIED and they were in their 30's and 40's. This is for real folks and it ain't going away. The new study is of very low quality and it is a shame it is getting the coverage it is as people are being tricked into believing they are safe and they are not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBe safe, not sorry. Wish someone had warned my husband 20 years ago. Be fearful of dying from a brain tumor , but moreso be fearful of living with one. THEY SUCK.
Ellie, I am very sorry to hear about your husband's condition, and I sincerely hope he will recover.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the sentiment that he has got this malignant tumor from cell-phone use is definitely not based in any science. As the cited report says: no raise in incidence can be seen yet in large-scale studies. People used to get these tumors before, and they still get them now with the same frequency. Please do not blame your husband, or any other person, for getting a tumor! This can make cancer patients feel very bad about their life, and it is not true! Anyone can get cancer, even the most healthy sports fanatic.
The scientific uncertainty whether the incidence of brain tumors will still be the same after a longer study does not change my conclusion; if they find out that there are cell-phone tumors but that they need at least 10 years to grow, that also means your husband does not suffer this disease because he has been using cell phones.
It is not his fault. Stop blaming him for his condition and use the energy to support him with all your hart.
The Conclusion from a recent paper published in the JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, October, 2009 - Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis by Myung et al found that there is possible evidence linking mobile phone use to an increased risk of tumors from a meta-analysis of low-biased case-control studies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Blackman, past president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, published a paper in Pathophysiology - Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment. Section 1.2. states: Modulation signals are one important component in the delivery of EMF signals to which cells, tissues, organs and individuals can respond biologically. He also mentions that more recent studies of modulated RF signals report changes in human cognition, reaction time, brainwave activity, sleep disruption and immune function. Dr Blackman includes the following sentence within the conclusion of his paper: Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF signals. The current IEEE and ICNIRP standards are not sufficiently protective of public health with respect to chronic exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony). The collective papers on modulation appear to be omitted from consideration in the recent WHO and IEEE science reviews. This body of research has been ignored by current standard setting bodies that rely only on traditional energy-based (thermal) concepts.
Professor Martin Blank, said: This special issue of Pathophysiology is about the human bodys sensitivity to EMF signals in the environment, e.g., EMF effects on DNA, effects on the brain from cell phone radiation, and how EMFs in the environment may lead to Alzheimers disease, dementia and breast cancer. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like.
There are currently 4 billion people using mobile phones, you could estimate that 25% are children and young adults under 20. Its time to implement the Precautionary Principle as a matter of urgency:
The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that
the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen.
Kind Regards,
Eileen O'Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
http://www.radiationresearch.org
& Rewire.me eMagazine
http://www.rewire.me
The Conclusion from a recent paper published in the JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, October, 2009 - Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis by Myung et al found that there is possible evidence linking mobile phone use to an increased risk of tumors from a meta-analysis of low-biased case-control studies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr Blackman, past president of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, published a paper in Pathophysiology - “Evidence from ELF and RF studies supporting more inclusive risk identification and assessment.” Section 1.2. states: “Modulation signals are one important component in the delivery of EMF signals to which cells, tissues, organs and individuals can respond biologically.” He also mentions that “more recent studies of modulated RF signals report changes in human cognition, reaction time, brainwave activity, sleep disruption and immune function.” Dr Blackman includes the following sentence within the conclusion of his paper: “Current standards have ignored modulation as a factor in human health impacts, and thus are inadequate in the protection of the public in terms of chronic exposure to some forms of ELF-modulated RF signals. The current IEEE and ICNIRP standards are not sufficiently protective of public health with respect to chronic exposure to modulated fields (particularly new technologies that are pulse-modulated and heavily used in cellular telephony). The collective papers on modulation appear to be omitted from consideration in the recent WHO and IEEE science reviews. This body of research has been ignored by current standard setting bodies that rely only on traditional energy-based (thermal) concepts.”
Professor Martin Blank, said: “This special issue of Pathophysiology is about the human body’s sensitivity to EMF signals in the environment, e.g., EMF effects on DNA, effects on the brain from cell phone radiation, and how EMFs in the environment may lead to Alzheimers disease, dementia and breast cancer. The scientific evidence tells us that our safety standards are inadequate, and that we must protect ourselves from exposure to EMF due to power lines, cell phones and the like.”
There are currently 4 billion people using mobile phones, you could estimate that 25% are children and young adults under 20. Its time to implement the Precautionary Principle as a matter of urgency:
“The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that
the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen.”
Kind Regards,
Eileen O'Connor
Director
EM Radiation Research Trust
http://www.radiationresearch.org
& Rewire.me eMagazine
http://www.rewire.me
"Recent studies by scientists in many different nations have found that radiofrequency signals can directly damage DNA without producing any noticeable change in temperature, and can produce cancer-inducing free radicals, proteins known to be tied with mutation, and memory loss in both animals and humans"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd?? a change in position now??? and the mechanism IS??? If you look there is no hard science behind any of these clams. Just like the power line Freak-out of the 80s it is based on irrational fear and pseudoscience. . . .and organizations and businesses capitalizing on it.
radiationresearch_dot_org?? an authority?? "go there and learn the truth??" WTF these people are clueless . . . They can talk the talk sure but anyone that has any REAL knowledge of radiofrequency radiation and electromagnetic fields quickly find the inconsistency and misuse of terms showing a layman's (or layman's plus) understanding but not full understanding as a good engineer would have. If they can get that right how can the get anything else right?? The health effects?? all meta-studies that are notoriously easy to bias or reach the conclusion they are LOOKING for (not science!)
So I say again what is the mechanism that a cell phone is suppose to be able to invoke to damage DNA? (again at That power level, frequency, and let not also forget duration and depth of penetration needed) . . .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso keep in mind that much higher exposure of much more varied frequencies and power levels have been studied for 50+ years . . not just 10.
note they used to say it was only the electromagnetic fields, then they went to radiofrequency . . both ways damage was either heating or . . . well, "magic" ie it just does "unnatural" . . . Now because of debunking (and the former being quite natural) they are pushing Modulated signals?!? this is "called moving the goal post" and they do not go back and denounce all of the "OLD" fear from say "power lines" and the like . . shamsters to be sure.
Also note that I understand and know that eletromagnetic radiation and fields can harm people . . just like anything else. Though you need allot and/or have it applied in a very precise way. I would accept REAL evidence. But that evidence has to be good evidence that is independently verified and precisely gathered and tested and then retested. Anything else is conjecture . . and with all of the baggage this already has and with Companies and groups already making money on this . . conjecture is not worth spit!
Found the best discription so far on how cell phone EM can harm cells . . it is "caused" by calcium ions "leaking" from cell membranes that only happens when a modulated signal is demodulated in the cell . .causing all sorts of problems for the organism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd in there own docs
"How cells demodulate the signal . The mechanism of demodulation is controversial, but there is no doubt that it
occurs." - cell phone facts from radiationresearch_dot_org
Oh my this is a funny read . . .
No doubt? but they just said The mechanism of demodulation is controversial?? (and reading on) WTF the basis to the entire paper is that painfully weak and quickly dispatched as "No doubt, really trust us it really works??" - TRIPE . .no science here . .
Team reseachers in Northern Europe have studied camcer registries and founf no increase in the rate of brian tumors in the five to ten years following the wide spread of cell phone adoption in that region. despite various types of tumors, this study looked for the two most common types on in Denmark, Fenland, Norway, and sweden between 1974 and 2003. They picked the Nordic countries because the broad early adoption of the technology. one reason as to why we can't find the correlation between is because today we dont have enough or dont no enough information about cancer(tumors). My opinion on this is that in order to detect some type of connection, you will need to study longer because the rate at which cancer grows is slow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this