Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

The Hidden Health Risk of Cell Phones

By Geoffrey Lean, Independent UK. Posted October 12, 2007.


Research into the link between regular cell phone use and brain cancer reveals the risks rise significantly after 10 years.
Advertisement

Using a mobile phone for more than 10 years increases the risk of getting brain cancer, according to the most comprehensive study of the risks yet published.

The study -- which contradicts official pronouncements that there is no danger of getting the disease -- found that people who have had the phones for a decade or more are twice as likely to get a malignant tumour on the side of the brain where they hold the handset.

The scientists who conducted the research say using a mobile for just an hour every working day during that period is enough to increase the risk -- and that the international standard used to protect users from the radiation emitted is "not safe" and "needs to be revised."

They conclude that "caution is needed in the use of mobile phones" and believe children, who are especially vulnerable, should be discouraged from using them at all.

The study, published in the latest issue of the peer-reviewed journal Occupational Environmental Medicine, is important because it pulls together research on people who have used the phones for long enough to contract the disease.

Cancers take at least 10 years -- and normally much longer -- to develop but, as mobile phones have spread so recently and rapidly, relatively few people have been using them that long.

Official assurances that the phones are safe have been based on research that has, at best, included only a few people who have been exposed to the radiation for long enough to get the disease, and are therefore of little or no value in assessing the real risk.

Last month, Britain's largest investigation into the health risks of the technology, the £8.8m Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) programme -- funded by "government and industry sources" -- reported that "mobile phones have not been found to be associated with any biological or adverse health effects".

But its chairman, Professor Lawrie Challis, admitted that only a small proportion of the research had covered people who had used the phones for more than a decade. He warned: "We cannot rule out the possibility at this stage that cancer could appear in a few years' time."

He said the investigation had discovered "a very slight hint" of increased numbers of brain tumours among those exposed for more than 10 years, and called for more research.

The new study -- headed by two Swedes, Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro and Professor Kjell Hansson Mild of Umea University, who also serves on the MTHR programme's management committee -- goes some way to meeting the deficiency.

The scientists pulled together the results of the 11 studies that have so far investigated the occurrence of tumours in people who have used phones for more than a decade, drawing on research in Sweden, Denmark Finland, Japan, Germany, the United States and Britain. They found almost all had discovered an increased risk, especially on the side of the head where people listened to their handsets.

Five of the six studies of malignant gliomas, cancers of the glial cells that support and protect the nerve cells, found an increased risk. The only one that did not still found an increase in benign gliomas. Four of the five studies that looked at acoustic neuromas -- benign but often disabling tumors on the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness -- found them. The exception was based on only two cases of the disease, but still found that long-term users had larger tumours than other people.

The scientists assembled the findings of all the studies to analyse them collectively. This revealed that people who have used their phones for a decade or more are 20 per cent more likely to contract acoustic neuromas, and 30 per cent more likely to get malignant gliomas.

The risk is even greater on the side of the head the handset is used: long-term users were twice as likely to get the gliomas, and two and a half times more likely to get the acoustic neuromas there than other people.

The scientists conclude: "Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for more than 10 years give a consistent pattern of an increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma." They add that "an increased risk for other types of brain tumours cannot be ruled out."

Professors Hardell and Mild have also themselves carried out some of the most extensive original work into tumours among long-term mobile phone users and have come up with even more alarming results. Their research suggests they are more than three times more likely to get malignant gliomas than other people, and nearly five times more likely to get them on the side of the head where they held the phone. For acoustic neuromas they found a threefold and three-and-a-half-fold increased risk respectively.

They have also carried out the only study into the effects of the long-term use of cordless phones, and found this also increased both kinds of tumours. Their research suggests that using a mobile or cordless phone for just 2,000 hours -- less than an hour every working day for 10 years -- is enough to augment the risk.

Professor Mild told The Independent on Sunday: "I find it quite strange to see so many official presentations saying that there is no risk. There are strong indications that something happens after 10 years." He stressed that brain cancers are rare: they account for less than 2 percent of primary tumors in Britain, though they are disproportionately deadly, causing 7 percent of the years of life lost to the disease. "Every cancer is one too many," he said.

He said he uses a mobile phone as little as possible, and urges others to use hands-free equipment and make only short calls, reserving longer ones for landlines. He also said that mobiles should not be given to children, whose thinner skulls and developing nervous systems make them particularly vulnerable.

The danger may be even greater than the new study suggests for, as Professor Mild says, 10 years is the "minimum" period needed by cancers to develop. As they normally take much longer, very many more would be likely to strike long-term users after 15, 20 or 30 years -- which leads some to fear that an epidemic of the disease could develop in the coming decades, particularly among today's young people.

On the other hand, the professor points out that the amount of radiation emitted by phones has decreased greatly since the first ones came on the market more than a decade ago, which suggests that exposures and risks should also be falling. But he still recommended choosing phones that give out as little radiation as possible, and pointed out that people are now also exposed to many other sources of radiation, such as masts and Wi-Fi systems, though these emit much less than mobile handsets.

Britain's official Health Protection Agency -- which has taken a cautious view of claims that radiation from mobile phones, their masts and Wi-Fi installations can damage health -- admits that the study "may be indicative" of a risk, but says that "such analyses cannot be conclusive."

The Mobile Operators Association said: "This is not new data for the World Health Organisation and the many independent expert scientific committees who state that there are no established health risks from using mobile phones that comply with international guidelines."

Both sides agree that there is need for more research. Professor Mild said a possible link between mobile phones and Alzheimer's disease should also be examined, since "we have indications that it might be a problem" as well as a possible link with Parkinson's disease, "which can't be ruled out."

In the meantime, the scientists want a revision of the emission standard for mobiles and other sources of radiation, which they describe as "inappropriate" and "not safe." The international standard is designed merely to prevent harmful heating of living tissue or induced electrical currents in the body -- and does not take the risk of getting cancer into account.

Professors Hansen and Mild serve on the international BioInitiative Working Group of leading scientists and public health experts, which this summer produced a report warning that the standard was "thousands of times too lenient."

The BioInitiative report added: "It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that some adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of exposure ... some at several thousand times below the existing safety limits." It also warned that unless this is corrected there could be "public health problems of a global nature."

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: cell phones, brain cancer, radiation

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Worrisome reading
Posted by: Rod from Canada on Oct 12, 2007 4:13 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It brings to mind all the past assurances by corporations, government agencies, etc. on a range of issues, whether DDT use, cigarette smoking, fast food, GM food, and so forth, that these were/are all safe, and that people have nothing to worry about. No wonder so many consumers are so mistrustful of what is being peddled to them these days. They have every right to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've never used a mobile
Posted by: animalleaderisgreat on Oct 12, 2007 6:20 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not even once. I've never used a Blackberry either, or an MP3 player. It seems as if everyone these days has something stuck in their ear, stuck to their ear, or engaging their thumbs.

But here's why: not because of potential health risks, but because those things are obnoxious! I take the El every day for an hour each way and it's nothing but [mimics screaming mobile user] "I'LL BE THERE IN FIVE MINUTES I'M ON THE EL!" God!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I've never used a mobile Posted by: bcgirl125
A little more on the subject
Posted by: WhatNow? on Oct 12, 2007 6:37 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Further Risks Of Cell Phones
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Oct 12, 2007 8:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A detailed article about more dangers of cell phone radiation, including a history of the problem :
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2006/04/20/
mobile_and_wireless_largest_biological_experiment.htm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Back to the Caves Mentality
Posted by: apophenia_monkey on Oct 12, 2007 11:39 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sensationalism is all this is.

i defy you lot--if the same rag ran a report on PC usage and wrist tumors, how many would write it off?

it's all well and good to piss and moan about productivity tools for folks making salaries larger than the average table slag, but the minute it hits home, it's all about gov't/corporate silencing of your voices.

feh. bunch of useless toe-rags.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Back to the Caves Mentality Posted by: apophenia_monkey
» RE: Back to the Caves Mentality Posted by: beeofdoom
» RE: Back to the Caves Mentality Posted by: apophenia_monkey
Deny, Deny, Deny
Posted by: Axiom69 on Oct 13, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It only stands to reason that if you put something next to your head that's emitting electromagnetic radiation eventually there is going to be a side effect. The companies know this and that is why cell phones are getting weaker and more and more towers are going up. When it does finally hit the fan there will be all the usual denials and attacks on the science that proves it. Just like global warming, tobacco and all the others that I don't have to name.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Michael in Massachusetts
Posted by: Skeptical4life on Oct 13, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on people, remember the boy who cried wolf?

Source article: http://oem.bmj.com/
search "Key Words": cellular phone brain cancer
Results:
The cohort study was of limited value due to methodological shortcomings in the study. Of the 16 case–control studies, 11 gave results for >=10 years’ use or latency period. Most of these results were based on low numbers. An association with acoustic neuroma was found in four studies in the group with at least 10 years’ use of a mobile phone. No risk was found in one study, but the tumour size was significantly larger among users. Six studies gave results for malignant brain tumours in that latency group. All gave increased odd ratios (OR), especially for ipsilateral exposure. In a meta-analysis, ipsilateral cell phone use for acoustic neuroma was OR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.3) and OR = 2.0, (1.2 to 3.4) for glioma using a tumour latency period of >=10 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crap!
Posted by: vkobaya on Oct 13, 2007 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The shame is that a piece of moronic crap like this article completely discredits all the good work that Alternet does in its other work. The so-called scientists who produced this research, remind me of a former boss of mine, ostensibly a PhD chemist who believed in astrology, alchemy, voodoo and other shit. Give me a break. As soon as you call something radiation, everyone is sure it causes cancer. Nitwit, ninnihammers!!!! There is no possible mechanism by which low energy electromagnetic radiation can interact with living tissue to cause cancer. Any decent scientist could tell you that except for my former boss.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No KNOWN mechanism Posted by: hotar
» RE: Crap! Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Crap! Posted by: vkobaya
» RE: Crap! Posted by: wisegalah
» RE: Crap! Posted by: dmb8762
Remember the SAME report YEARS AGO?!?
Posted by: helenwheels on Oct 13, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Five years ago they reported this. Then about a couple months later, it was suddenly "safe" again. Interesting, huh? What I want to know is whether texting will give us cancer of the fingers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The answer is yes helen. See ya! Posted by: johngary66
A brief primer on 'electromagnetic radiation'
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 13, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always worry that the low levels of scientific education in the U.S. are clouding this issue. First of all, there are two central issues here: radiation intensity and radiation wavelength (or frequency).

High frequency (short wavelength) radiation is damaging even at low intensity - X-rays and gamma rays, for example. Below them on the energy level is UV (ultraviolet) radiation.

That's why the ozone hole is a problem - ozone depletion in the stratosphere allows UV radiation in at greater rates (high intensity), and those UV photons can damage DNA, leading to cancers.

As we move lower down the electromagnetic spectrum, from visible light to infrared to microwave to radio waves (all forms of light, or EM radiation), the energy of individual photons drops - meaning that the threat then is from the intensity.

Infrared and microwaves can cause damage at high intensity - that's like being burned by a fire if you're too close. There's also the microwave 'crowd control weapon': Details of US microwave-weapon tests revealed, July 2005, NewScientist

So, can high-intensity microwaves cause cancer? Well, microwaves can't induce the kind of DNA damage that UV radiation does - but the radiation is very penetrating and various effect can cause disruptions between sensitive DNA-protein gene regulation interactions.

Now, if you really want some scarce techical details, see Molecular Biological Physics

"In the early 1980's reports of microwave irradiation of the US embassy in Moscow started many people worrying about the possibility of harmful effects of microwaves. One worry was long term gene damage that could lead to cancer or genetic defects. The molecular biological physics group at Purdue was the only group that had models of DNA vibrational modes that could be used in calculating microwave absorption by DNA. Calculations of microwave absorption and its possible effects were carried on with the simultaneous support of NIH, FDA, US Navy, and US air force. DNA has acoustic modes in the microwave region that do have a dipole moment and can absorb radiation."

So, there is an issue here - but in the US, where corporate interests have huge influence in the academic world, studying issues that might lead to billions in lawsuits against industries is not something that any career-conscious 'scientist' is likey to pursue.

Use the things as little as possible, in other words, and use a headset with a very long cord. (intensity falls off with distance).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am conconered about second hand cellphone radiation
Posted by: drblack on Oct 13, 2007 10:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Cell phone use in public MUST be banned to protect us all from the deadly dangers of Second hand cellphone radiation.
We need to protect the childrens from the evil of second hand cellphone radiation.
This means banning cell phone use in any environment where a childrens might be at some point in time.
The big telecoms have been trying to deny the DEADLY effects of second hand cellphone radiation for years.
The Big telecom lobby has hoodwinked our government into this deadly conspiracy.
We must make all cellphone users feel that they are 2nd class citizens because while they may have some dubious claim to Freedom in our Constitutional Republic they cannot continue to force the deadly effects of their filthy habit of cellphone use with its deadly and killing result from exposure to second hand cellphone radiation.
I think a program of gradual land line use can wean these twisted individuals from their DEADLY cellphone habit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WOW! This is Great News!!!
Posted by: Astroboy on Oct 13, 2007 10:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To think that all these cell-phone addicted inbeciles may drop dead of brain cancer warms the cockles of my heart and brings me much anticipated joy.

Perhaps then I can avoid being killed by some moron who lacks the motor-skills to drive and talk at the same time and my life will cease to be intruded upon in every public and social setting I step foot in.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ha ha ha ha ha.... Posted by: margwa
Let's Look Before We Leap!
Posted by: gogm on Oct 13, 2007 11:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Non-ionizing radiation keeps evoking scares. First microwave ovens in the 70s. Then power lines and VDTs in the 80s and 90s. Now its cell phones.

We deserve and need to switch from presuming that new technologies are "innocent until proven guilty" by means of body counts to open-minded and impartially funded inquiry into the potential hazards of new technologies that will be widely used.

Unfortunately, the weak position of Public Health in today's society, the bias of conservatives such as the Bushes or the Clintons to let the foxes guard the chicken coop of research by leaving them in charge of research funding, and the complete disinterest of the Public Health community to the subject of non-ionizing radiation augur for continued scares and controversies.

Activisits will keep saying research is controlled by the military and industry, the foxes. The Public Health community will keep working hard to stay away from the subject. The problems will fester as uses of non-ionizing radiation proliferate.

One historical point. Impartial, monitored research into power line hazards demonstrated the hazard does not exist or is almost vanishingly small. That effort broke the power line controversy and can serve as a model for dealing with other scientific controversies. One other historical point. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) was forced to manage the Federal effort by Democratic Congressional fiat in 1992. The Federal effort ended in 1998 and NIEHS high-tailed it out of non-ionizing radiation research like a scared rabbit! Another point is that no USA Public Health professional society has taken non-ionizing radiation standards setting under its wing. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists does recommend workplace exposure limits, but not public or consumer exposure limits. But how may of you know what an Industrial Hygienist is? Who cares what they say? As a result, setting standards for non-ionizing radiation in the USA defaults to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (in contrast, Canadian and European Public Health entities are involved).

This could be another case of shortsighted pro-industry policies allowing controversies to fester to the detriment of everybody, especially industry. In regards to the threat posed to industry, this is reminiscent of the USA's problems with financial market regulation. Let's look before we leap to potentially erroneous and costly conclusions!

Gordon Miller
Former Chair of the State of California EMF (research project, now discontinued) Stakeholder Advisory Committee
Certified Industrial Hygienist

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tawnichenille
Posted by: tawnichenille on Oct 13, 2007 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For better information on cell phones and cell towers, go to:
http://video.google.com and type in "The dangers of cell phones"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

grethart
Posted by: grethart on Oct 13, 2007 6:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sayonara

we is all dead!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Get a life!
Posted by: cinderfella on Oct 14, 2007 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I already know someone gone from excessive cellphone usage. Brain tumor on his cell phone side. Had a big habit gabbing. You know they can see the radiation imprint from x-ray! Get with it, and get out of de nile. It's a coverup 6 feet deep. Microwaves are cancer causing. If not now, eventually. Someone's making a killing in the meantime...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FORTUNES ARE BEING MADE ON CELL PHONES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 14, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We aren't likely to learn the truth about health risks for a long time. But rude behavior is suddenly the norm. I think it's a much greater cause of stress that we know. The talker is trying to so do too many things, the person on the other end hears every other word and the people around the cell yeller are all annoyed. Sounds like a high level of anxiety for everyone. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ban rude behavior! Posted by: Sushi
Remembering Dick Tracy and Star Trek?
Posted by: common intelligence on Oct 14, 2007 10:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This evolution of a comic book concept was cool and a unique idea.

The interesting thing I find is, in those scenes where DIck Tracy and Captain Kirk and others contacted each other, the transfer of information was quick to the point , over and out. There wasn't any long drawn out BS or calls to text message a silly string fight in a mall or shopping cart races in the super market of whining and demanding everyone know where the other one was every moment or whim of insecurity. It's turned onto a bloody passifing nipple!

SO if anyone thinks the only side affects causing health problems from cell phone is cancer, take another look.
It's an obsessive compulsive disorder on a mass scale.

To think cell phones give freedom is part of the illusion.
Freedom from cell phones....now that's freedom!

Yup, I had a cancerous growth happening on my ear.
I bought the thing (cell) for my convenience. Not everyone elses. I use it descriminately now. But am even going back to the "pager".

"Spock, out"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Time and Other Conditions
Posted by: anothername on Oct 15, 2007 5:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As with other environmental health hazards, not everybody will get ill. As with other hazards, there is a critical point at which accumulative damage suddenly becomes deadly. As with other hazards, the threat is hard to see and hard to calculate.

According to one researcher, lung cancer from power plants is apt to strike women who live in the same place for 50 years. Women were more likely to stay in the same place than men during the 50 years studied, so the cancer was more likely to show up in women if caused by a particular source point. Similarly, men are more likely to have lung diseases related to working with asbestos. In contrast, there is also the danger of smoking cigarettes and breathing in second-hand smoke, which can endanger children, women, and men.

Cell phones and cancer is a link that will be hard to prove. There are enough other environmental conditions at play that opponents of the theory will be able to deflect any connection. There are enough people using cell phones for extended periods of time that there will be plenty of opportunities to observe their brain health over the decades to come.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Better safe
Posted by: CollD on Oct 24, 2007 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have a cell phone that has a high freq because i use it in rural areas, and it actually gives me a headache...i can feel it against the side of my head. Everyone I tell this too tells me I am nuts. But its always when i am talking on the phone, and always on that side. So, i started using a head set, and putting my cell phone a few feet away from me. I'd rather do that then worry about tumors later on in life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]