Analysis of cellphone studies finds tumor risk

[steven johnson]

Source: LA Times

An analysis published Tuesday of data from 23 epidemiological studies found no connection between cellphone use and the development of cancerous or benign tumors. But when eight of the studies that were conducted with the most scientific rigor were analyzed, cellphone users were shown to have a 10% to 30% increased risk of tumors compared with people who rarely or never used the phones. The risk was highest among those who had used cellphones for 10 years or more.


"I went into this really dubious that anything was going on," Moskowitz said. "Overall, you find no difference. But when you start teasing the studies apart and doing these subgroup analyses, you do find there is reason to be concerned."

All of the studies were case control studies, which means researchers interviewed people on their past use of cellphones. Some of the people, referred to as controls, had no history of brain tumors; others, known as cases, had been diagnosed with brain tumors. The studies encompassed 37,916 people.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-cell-phones14-2009oct14,0,3949576.story

---

Maybe I should be using a hands free headset.

[TheDebbieDee]

1. Unless it's an extremely private conversation, I use the speaker.

I'm always encouraging my motor-mouthed daughter to do the same............

[LisaM]

2. These articles never get into the amount of time people spend on cellphones

I use mine, usually, for one or two brief conversations a day, to let people know I'm at the bus stop. Total, maybe two minutes. I just don't use it for conversation. I text on it sometimes. I vastly prefer to talk on a land line if I can. But I see people who are just always on them - yakking away on the bus, crossing the street, at stores - they're glued to them. I wish these studies would discuss how many hours a day we're talking, as well as the length of the conversations.

[pnwmom]

11. But I've heard that wireless phones at home have the same effect.

Maybe it's time to go back to corded phones?

[LisaM]

17. I've heard that too.

I miss corded phones. What I really miss is the quality of the reception. And I'm not talking about the cheapie plastic phones you buy yourself. The old phones, the one the telephone company supplied.

[midnight armadillo]

31. Much lower power

A home cordless phone needs to transmit about 50 feet. It takes a lot more power for cell phone to reach a cell tower.

[du_grad]

34. Corded phones actually still exist :-)

We have one cordless downstairs and two corded phones upstairs. We NEVER have problems with the upstairs phones themselves. We still have a landline through our cable company, and the line itself is a problem a couple of times a year, but not the phones. I do not enjoy carrying on extended conversations on a cell because you have to hold the darned things up to your ear, whereas the other phones you can prop up with your shoulder and do something else. I also like the fact that you can actually hear the phone ring instead of carrying the damned little phone around with you all the time. I keep it in my purse and, even with the volume turned up, I miss calls and text messages quite often. I had to set the ringer for an actual telephone ring. I can't get my mind used to listening for a song or something dumb as an indication somebody is trying to call me. Call me old, LOL.

The landline costs somewhere between $20-25 per month when bundled in with cable and computer, and it a lot cheaper than AT&T. They were ripping us for nearly $40/month before I said that's IT. I know we could go without a land line but we've had the number forever and it would just be too difficult to change it. Cell phones are a necessity nowadays but I really don't like them much. They cost a lot and we never use up our minutes. Probably time to change our plan...

[dysfunctional press]

37. we've got three of the old phone company phones- in classic beige.

one of them is the princess model, the other two are the traditional desk phone- one of them even has a rotary dial.

[jeff47]

3. Here's the money quote

"The other group of 15 studies were not as high-quality," said study coauthor Joel M. Moskowitz, director of the UC Berkeley Center for Family and Community Health. "They either found no association or a negative association or a protective effect -- which I don't think anyone would have predicted."

Bad scientist! No cookie!

You don't get to throw out data just because it doesn't support your hypothesis.

Btw, anyone claiming cell phones (0.1-4 watts of RF) cause cancer will have to explain why television antennas (50,000 watts of RF) don't.

[JoeyT]

6. Yeah, this isn't a very convincing article.

It's only going to convince people that were convinced to start with.

Speaking of the 8 studies they used:
"However, seven of those eight studies were conducted by a single researcher, Dr. Lennart Hardell, an oncologist in Sweden." is pretty interesting too. Usually when people do something like that it means they hunted down a crank and ignored all conflicting evidence.

Upon Googling the good doctor, we find that he's a member of the Radiation Research Trust. A group that regularly screams and hurls feces at, not just cell phones, but WiFi, power lines, microwaves, and anything else they think creates "radiation". So that answers that question.

This is exactly what bad science and bad journalism look like when they team up.

[pnwmom]

13. Funny, you conveniently left out the sentence preceding the one you quoted:

Eight of the studies were singled out as more reliable because the researchers were not told which people had tumors and because the studies were not supported with mobile phone industry funding.

[jeff47]

25. You do realize there's a fortune to be made here

by supplying worried consumers with protection from their evil cell phones?

[MindPilot]

7. It's a rhetorical question but the answer is pretty simple

RF fields simply pass through the human body without interacting with any of the molecules in the body's cells, or interacting with so few as to be inconsequential. The frequency has to get up into the x-ray and gamma ray spectrum to cause cellular damage.

[TexasProgresive]

14. Step into my parlor

which is really a room sized microwave oven an let me give you 60 or 120 seconds of RF. BBBBWWWWHHAAAAAA!
I've gotten RF burns and it wasn't from and super high freq stuff- let me tell you.

[MindPilot]

18. And that's going to really hurt because

microwave ovens work at a specific frequency that happens to excite water molecules. It doesn't mess with DNA and induce tumor growth. The average person probably gets more damaging radiation from day in the sun than they do from their cell phone.

[pnwmom]

22. These days many people spend much more time on their cell phones

than they do in the sun -- much less "a day in the sun."

[gilpo]

8. Inverse square law

the effect of the radiation is inversly proportional to the square of the distance from the source. Not saying it's a factor, but 2 watts at 1 cm is equivilent to 50,0000 watts at a few meters.

[pollo poco]

9. thank you gilpo

The inverse square law...imagine that!...maybe people who have never heard of it should stop shouting their dining room table opinions and open a book BEFORE commenting.

Not just a right wing problem folks.

[pnwmom]

16. Which would be a reason for concern, wouldn't it? n/t

[jeff47]

23. And?

And there are people who have been living and working a few meters from high-powered TV & radio antennas for about 80 years. (Lots of places have the antennas just on the roof of, or otherwise adjacent to, the studio)

This also ignores the folks who build & test radios, who've been exposed to lots and lots of RF day in, day out for 80 years.

Lastly, there's the little issue that nobody who claims RF can cause tumors has provided even a theoretical mechanism by which this would work. We know RF doesn't have enough energy to break chemical bonds, so it's not gonna work in the same manner as UV and higher.

But there's a fortune to be made selling the danger, so there's plenty of folks lining up to claim it's dangerous.

[Robb]

30. This bears repeating:

"Nobody who claims RF can cause tumors has provided even a theoretical mechanism by which this would work." :thumbsup:

[Trillo]

32. Sure about that?

Emphasis added

Exposure to 900 MHz electromagnetic field induces an unbalance between pro-apoptotic and pro-survival signals in T-lymphoblastoid leukemia CCRF-CEM cells.
Marinelli F, La Sala D, Cicciotti G, Cattini L, Trimarchi C, Putti S, Zamparelli A, Giuliani L, Tomassetti G, Cinti C.

Institute for Organ Transplantation and Immunocytology, ITOI-CNR, Bologna unit, c/o IOR, Bologna, Italy.

It has been recently established that low-frequency electromagnetic field (EMFs) exposure induces biological changes and could be associated with increased incidence of cancer, while the issue remains unresolved as to whether high-frequency EMFs can have hazardous effect on health. Epidemiological studies on association between childhood cancers, particularly leukemia and brain cancer, and exposure to low- and high-frequency EMF suggested an etiological role of EMFs in inducing adverse health effects. To investigate whether exposure to high-frequency EMFs could affect in vitro cell survival, we cultured acute T-lymphoblastoid leukemia cells (CCRF-CEM) in the presence of unmodulated 900 MHz EMF, generated by a transverse electromagnetic (TEM) cell, at various exposure times. We evaluated the effects of high-frequency EMF on cell growth rate and apoptosis induction, by cell viability (MTT) test, FACS analysis and DNA ladder, and we investigated pro-apoptotic and pro-survival signaling pathways possibly involved as a function of exposure time by Western blot analysis. At short exposure times (2-12 h), unmodulated 900 MHz EMF induced DNA breaks and early activation of both p53-dependent and -independent apoptotic pathways while longer continuous exposure (24-48 h) determined silencing of pro-apoptotic signals and activation of genes involved in both intracellular (Bcl-2) and extracellular (Ras and Akt1) pro-survival signaling. Overall our results indicate that exposure to 900 MHz continuous wave, after inducing an early self-defense response triggered by DNA damage, could confer to the survivor CCRF-CEM cells a further advantage to survive and proliferate. Copyright 2003 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PMID: 14603534

Radiofrequency radiation (900 MHz) induces Egr-1 gene expression and affects cell-cycle control in human neuroblastoma cells.
Buttiglione M, Roca L, Montemurno E, Vitiello F, Capozzi V, Cibelli G.

Department of Pharmacology and Human Physiology, University of Bari, Italy.

Many environmental signals, including ionizing radiation and UV rays, induce activation of Egr-1 gene, thus affecting cell growth and apoptosis. The paucity and the controversial knowledge about the effect of electromagnetic fields (EMF) exposure of nerve cells prompted us to investigate the bioeffects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation on SH-SY5Y neuroblastoma cells. The effect of a modulated RF field of 900 MHz, generated by a wire patch cell (WPC) antenna exposure system on Egr-1 gene expression, was studied as a function of time. Short-term exposures induced a transient increase in Egr-1 mRNA level paralleled with activation of the MAPK subtypes ERK1/2 and SAPK/JNK. The effects of RF radiations on cell growth rate and apoptosis were also studied. Exposure to RF radiation had an anti-proliferative activity in SH-SY5Y cells with a significant effect observed at 24 h. RF radiation impaired cell cycle progression, reaching a significant G2-M arrest. In addition, the appearance of the sub-G1 peak, a hallmark of apoptosis, was highlighted after a 24-h exposure, together with a significant decrease in mRNA levels of Bcl-2 and survivin genes, both interfering with signaling between G2-M arrest and apoptosis. Our results provide evidence that exposure to a 900 MHz-modulated RF radiation affect both Egr-1 gene expression and cell regulatory functions, involving apoptosis inhibitors like Bcl-2 and survivin, thus providing important insights into a potentially broad mechanism for controlling in vitro cell viability. 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

PMID: 17559061

[jeff47]

36. You missed

You emphasis missed by a couple sentences. Specifically, you should have highlighted:
"Overall our results indicate that exposure to 900 MHz continuous wave, after inducing an early self-defense response triggered by DNA damage, could confer to the survivor CCRF-CEM cells a further advantage to survive and proliferate"

You didn't highlight anything in the 2nd article, so I'm really not sure what it is you're trying to convey. They blasted cells in a test tube with RF. However, you might find this and this interesting articles. 'Course they say they couldn't detect any problems.

[Elmore Furth]

33. Implantable radiofrequency microchip implants have a significant cancer risk

There is a significant literature on microchip induced tumors in animals:

http://www.antichips.com/cancer/albrecht-microchip-cancer-full-paper.pdf.

Mobile phones use electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health

Mutat Res. 2006 Apr 11;596(1-2):76-80. Epub 2006 Feb 2. Links
Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation.Paulraj R, Behari J.
School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067, India.

This investigation concerns with the effect of low intensity microwave (2.45 and 16.5 GHz, SAR 1.0 and 2.01 W/kg, respectively) radiation on developing rat brain. Wistar rats (35 days old, male, six rats in each group) were selected for this study. These animals were exposed for 35 days at the above mentioned frequencies separately in two different exposure systems. After the exposure period, the rats were sacrificed and the whole brain tissue was dissected and used for study of single strand DNA breaks by micro gel electrophoresis (comet assay). Single strand DNA breaks were measured as tail length of comet. Fifty cells from each slide and two slides per animal were observed. One-way ANOVA method was adopted for statistical analysis. This study shows that the chronic exposure to these radiations cause statistically significant (p<0.001) increase in DNA single strand breaks in brain cells of rat.


Single strand DNA breaks in rat brain cells exposed to microwave radiation.

[jeff47]

35. You should be more careful with your sources.

You're linking an article from a web site named "antichips" and treat it as unbiased?

There's also one big, big problem with claiming radiation from those chips cause cancer: Those chips are passive. The ones injected into animals use radio waves sent by an external transmitter to power themselves and thus transmit their ID number. So if the animal isn't being scanned, the chip doesn't give off any RF.

Secondly, the summary you linked (why is it these folks never produce their own work?) doesn't seem to understand that the microchips in question are contained within a plastic shell....so there isn't any actual exposure to microchips unless they can demonstrate that the shell failed (they don't).

Also, the author of your linked paper is actually a radio host. She doesn't have a PhD. She has an EdD, which is a doctorate in education. She's also on a privacy crusade against RFID and similar technologies, which means she's got a lot of reason to oppose implanted microchips.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Albrecht

As for your second paper, it's really a good idea to look at that "related" section on the right side of the page. Your paper claims to have found damage. But these 3 related papers:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14761846
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7677797
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16978512
Say that there was no measurable DNA damage at SAR levels one gets in a cell phone.

Finally, Cell phones have been ubiquitous for 20 years. How 'come nobody's published a study on those early adopters having an increased incidence of cancer? Heck, a 1990 cell phone gave off much more RF than a modern cell phone.

[snooper2]

38. Yep, I guess I better stay out of our lab and off the roof of the lab huh

All those LMDS systems and point-to-point systems are killing me :rofl:

[Q3JR4]

39. Um....

Usually something that follows an inverse square law falls off as one over the distance squared since, you know, the radiation spreads out as it travels from the point source (in other words the same amount of radiation has to fill more space).

That being the case why is your radiation level INCREASING in intensity the further you are from the point source? That doesn't really sound right to me. Please explain where your numbers came from....

Since I could being wrong, while I wait for your reply I'll ask my physics students to explain it to me too. It would probably be good for them.

Q3JR4.
More information -- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html

[pnwmom]

12. You are twisting what he said. He didn't say they threw out those studies

because they didn't like the result.

They first separated out the studies that were conducted most rigorously, then looked at the results of the two sets of studies. The 8 that were more rigorous had different results than the others.

[jeff47]

24. Read a little more carefully

According to the quote in the article, "rigor" was measured by the outcome of the studies. The studies that showed no effect or a negative correlation were deemed "less rigorous".

Sure, their paper might actually list the problems in their paper, but the only issue identified in the article is unconscious bias by the authors of these studies.

In addition, most of the 8 studies they liked were conducted by a single researcher. And if your argument against the other studies is bias, well relying on a single researcher is a terrible way to weed out bias.

[steven johnson]

26. Increased salivary tumors with increased cell phone exposure on the same side

Sounds like increased cancer with higher rf exposure to me.

An Israeli scientist, Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, has found a link between cell phone usage and the development of tumors.

Dr. Sadetzki, a physician, epidemiologist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University, published the results of a study recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology, in which she and her colleagues found that people who make heavy use of cell phones were subject to a higher risk of benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland.

Those who used a cell phone heavily on the side of the head where the tumor developed were found to have an increased risk of about 50 percent for developing a tumor of the main salivary gland (parotid), compared to those who did not use cell phones.

The fact that the study was done on an Israeli population is significant. Says Sadetzki, "Unlike people in other countries, Israelis were quick to adopt cell phone technology and have continued to be exceptionally heavy users.

Cell phone-cancer link found by Tel Aviv University scientist

[jeff47]

40. Your link is dead (nt)

[sudopod]

28. "..which I don't think anyone would have predicted."

:3

I know what you mean. The author needs to go back to 8th grade science class.

[damntexdem]

4. Hands-free headset? So you only get brain tumors, not finger tumors?

What a shame that a necessity for very existence, something that we absolutely cannot live without, should cause tumors.

[brendan120678]

5. And if you're a guy who keeps your phone...

in your pants pocket while using the blue-tooth hands-free, what about testicular cancer?

[pnwmom]

15. The physicists I know don't keep them that close to their bodies routinely.

You can buy an attachment for your belt that keeps a phone from directly touching you.

[CountAllVotes]

21. no need to worry about cancer

your balls will simply drop off instead, no problem! :sarcasm: ...

:dem:

[pollo poco]

10. I need mine for oxygen intake

Seems perfectly natural to me. Please stop scaring me. I can't even consider thinking about life without it.
Why would God make such a hard world?

[Goldom]

19. A few notes.

All wireless devices put out some radiation, be it cell phone, cordless phone, wi-fi router, or bluetooth. But the -amount- they put out varies greatly. Cell phone signals, having to make it all the way to a remote tower, are many times stronger than a bluetooth connection that goes from your headset to a phone in your pocket, purse, etc. So it is still a better option than phone-to-the-head.

The other thing is that this radiation tapers off very quickly with distance. At a foot away, it's already practically none, in terms of what's still strong enough to penetrate your body. When I must carry my phone in my pocket, I put it across my wallet from my body... not saying that's a great scientifically tested method, but it should reduce it some.

Lastly, I've learned recently that many new phones tell you their radiation level on a sheet that comes with them... or you can look it up online, the term to search for is SAR (specific absorption rate). As I recently got an iPhone and so have been playing with it all the time, I've been switching it into airplane mode and just using wifi, so I don't have so many radio waves going through my hands all the time.

[CountAllVotes]

20. no cellphone here

never wanted one and never had one and luckily never got sucked into the dire want of having one.

So they cause cancer they finally admit now that we have a dead Senator. :(

:dem: :kick:

[steven johnson]

27. Cell Phones May Cause Injury to Men’s Testicles

OK. so some of you aren't worried about tumors of the brain or salivary glands.

Anyone worried about testicle damage?

Cell phones can affect sperm quality, researcher says

Cell Phones May Cause Injury to Men’s Testicles

A new warning is out that cell phones may cause potential injury to men, according to Los Angeles products liability attorneys, a recent study shows that men, who carry their cell phones in their pockets and use a hands-free device, may suffer the injury of an alarming decreased sperm count as a result.

Researchers recently found that exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic waves from the handset that was left on the talk mode and the carried in the front pocket can potentially damage the quality of sperm count in men.

Testing was done on 32 male volunteers who allowed sperm samples to be taken. The specimen was placed at a distance of a minimum of 2.5cms of an 850 MHz cell phone for one hour that was left on the talk or voice mode. The damage is done only if the cell phone is left on voice mode and in the front facing pocket or clipped onto the belt facing the groin.


Cell Phones May Cause Injury to Men’s Testicles

[Trillo]

29. I thought the issue was short term studies showed little correlation,

but longer term studies did. Here's one from 2009

Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data.
Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M.

Australian National University, Australia. <email snippped>

BACKGROUND: The debate regarding the health effects of low-intensity electromagnetic radiation from sources such as power lines, base stations, and cell phones has recently been reignited. In the present review, the authors attempt to address the following question: is there epidemiologic evidence for an association between long-term cell phone usage and the risk of developing a brain tumor? Included with this meta-analysis of the long-term epidemiologic data are a brief overview of cell phone technology and discussion of laboratory data, biological mechanisms, and brain tumor incidence. METHODS: In order to be included in the present meta-analysis, studies were required to have met all of the following criteria: (i) publication in a peer-reviewed journal; (ii) inclusion of participants using cell phones for > or = 10 years (ie, minimum 10-year "latency"); and (iii) incorporation of a "laterality" analysis of long-term users (ie, analysis of the side of the brain tumor relative to the side of the head preferred for cell phone usage). This is a meta-analysis incorporating all 11 long-term epidemiologic studies in this field. RESULTS: The results indicate that using a cell phone for > or = 10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same ("ipsilateral") side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma. CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.

PMID: 19328536

[Q3JR4]

41. Couple of points...

"<C>ellphone users were shown to have a 10% to 30% increased risk of tumors compared with people who rarely or never used the phones..." In certain parts of the world statements like this represent what is called an absolute risk reduction. If out of 100 cell phone users 10 die of cancer while out of 100 non-cell phone users 9 die of cancer that's a related rate of 10% or (10-9)/10, even though the actual rate of death is only 1% or 1 out of 100.

Bottom line, numbers can be manipulated to lie to you. You can usually tell that something is off when the study presents data as an absolute risk reduction. In those cases I want to see the numbers involved. If that information can't be presented, then I'm going to refuse to be worried.

Second are we seriously talking about radiation? Charges moving through a magnetic field produce radiation. In other words wires spread throughout your house that carry charge through the earth's magnetic field produce electromagnetic radiation. Power lines over your head? Radiation. Sun shining on you? Radiation. Live on the surface of the earth (every time an atomic bomb explodes on the surface of the earth the ambient radiation of the entire planet increases). Radiation.

You can't get away from it, it's inescapable, so chill out.

Q3JR4.