No Cell Phone-Brain Tumor Link, Latest Study Finds

A new study is throwing another wrench into the cell phone-cancer debate.

Despite the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)'s decision to classify cell phones as a possible carcinogen earlier this year, a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology shows that cell phone use doesn't seem to increase the risk of a noncancerous brain tumor.

A study of nearly 3 million Danish adults showed that those who used a cell phone for more than 11 years were not more likely to develop a noncancerous brain tumor, called an acoustic neuroma or a vestibular schwannoma, than people who don't use a cell phone or only started using one recently. Even though acoustic neuromas are noncancerous, scientists say they are still important in determining whether there is a cancer risk from cell phones, according to Reuters.

And even more, tumors were not more frequent on the side of the head where the cell phone was most commonly used, nor did the tumor size have anything to do with the amount of cell phone use, according to the study.

But we're not out of the woods yet -- study researcher Dr. Joachim Schuz, of the World Health Organization's IARC (the same organization that classified cell phones as a possible carcinogen) said that even long-term cell phone users in the study haven't been using the devices long enough to completely rule out a cancer-cell phone link.

"As most cell phone users started their use only from the early 1990s onwards," Schuz told Reuters, "we have only up to 15 years of observation time of larger numbers of users -- which is perhaps too short to see an effect, if there is any."

Most studies in the past have not shown a link between cell phone use and cancer. One of the largest studies exploring the link, the 13-country INTERPHONE study, showed that cell phone use, frequency and call duration did not seem to affect the risk of developing a brain tumor.

And an article in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published this year also showed that using a cell phone for 10 to 15 years didn't seem to affect brain cancer risk.

But as was the problem that Schuz acknowledged with his study, people haven't been using cell phones long enough to definitively know their effects after a long period of time, according to the American Cancer Society.

So what should people think?

From TIME:

Still, your own judgment about the risks of cell phone use will come down to your personal prejudices. If you believe cell phones are guilty until proven innocent — and if you believe cell phone companies have something to hide — you'll be wary. If not, you'll likely be comforted by the studies that show little indication of harm. But what you'll almost certainly never get is an absolute answer from medical science.

RELATED:

Comments

[nowGo4ward]

03:20 PM on 07/19/2011

"...than people who don't use a cell phone or only started using one recently..."

This was the control group--a little less than truly unexposed, and as a somewhat wifi-sensitive individual, I know that even those who don't use a cell phone are still very often around them.

[Ergon]

09:42 AM on 07/16/2011

I remember after the Fukushima disaster when some bloggers said the amount of radiation you were exposed to was "the equivalent of a trans-continental flight" or two x-rays, and nuclear industry scientists told us not to worry. Now that radionucleotides are showing up in our rainwater and milk, I wonder where they are now?

[CountLeo]

10:27 AM on 07/16/2011

I'm here. Receiving a dose of radiation (similar to that received in flight) is different than ingesting or inhaling radioisotopes. I haven't seen reports as to what isotopes or the concentrations have been found - have you seen any credible reports?

[mackull]

11:57 PM on 07/15/2011

Check This Out...

Mobile Telecommunications and Health (Commissioned by T-Mobil, DeTeMobil Deutsche Telekom MobilNet GmbH - the parent company of T-Mobile) commissioned a highly-rated independent research institute, the ECOLOG Institute in Hanover, to review all relevant available research to date with regard to the health risks from mobile telecommunications.This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers found strong indications for the cancer-initiating and cancer-promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology. THIS STATEMENT FROM T-MOBILE'S REPORT SAYS IT ALL..."Given the results of the present epidemiological studies, it can be concluded that electromagnetic fields with frequencies in the mobile telecommunications range do play a role in the development of cancer." (See p37)

(Source: http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/ecolog2000.pdf )

[mackull]

11:56 PM on 07/15/2011

Everybody Knows The Cell Phone Industry Has Never, Ever, Claimed Their Product Is Safe. They have always used 3rd parties to do this.

Now, they have begun to use these paid parties...The positions taken in this ICNRP review cannot easily be separated from the heavy industry funding for the work, which included direct financial support from the Mobile Manufacturers’ Forum, The GSM Association, the Mobile Telecommunications Health and Research Programme, AFA Insurance, VINNOA (the Swedish government agency for innovation, which received funds from TeliaSonera, EricssonAB, and Telenor.

Brain cancer is not the only health issue of concern linked to cell phone radiation, nor are cell phones the only source of radiofrequency and electromagnetic radiation. Important new research in rabbits and rats find that pulsed digital signals from today’s smartphones damage sperm, brain, liver, eyes and skin of exposed offspring, and impair their memory and behavior. According to independent studies at the Cleveland Clinic and Australia’s national research center, men who use cell phones four hours a day have about half the normal sperm and three times more damage to their DNA than those with much less use.

Source: http://www.cisionwire.com/the-investor-relations-group/r/environmental-health-trust-cites-conflict-of-interest-surrounding-new-published-study,c9142949

[WaitForIt]

10:02 AM on 07/16/2011

Everybody Knows The Cell Phone Industry Doesn't Use Cell Phones Because They Know Them To Be Dangerous.

Source: I made it up.

[mmulkeen]

10:00 PM on 07/15/2011

I'm very skeptical that cell phones could cause cancer. If so, shouldn't there also be a high tumor rate in hands too? Most guys keep their phones in their pockets more more time than the hold them up to their ears. So shouldn't their be an even higher rate of tumors around the upper leg area?

Also unlike say UV radiation, the energy intensity of the radio waves used by cell phones is so low that it has no effect on biomolecules. I remember reading an article by a physicist stating that the background energy level from temperature was higher than cell phone radio waves. In other words the radio wave signal is below the noise level of standard body temperature.

As far as the European governments issuing cautionary warnings, at times they can be too conservative or needlessly cautious, like they are with GMOs.

[DingoBuzzy]

09:15 PM on 07/15/2011

Nobody ever said that they did, including the WHO.

This isn't news, this is what I was screaming from the rooftops while you people were baiting clicks with intentionally bad interpretations of science.

[Ergon]

08:49 PM on 07/15/2011

Nice industry: the largest number of new users being young people, they publish studies blurring the proof that young people are the most vulnerable and likely to develop cancerous brain tumours.

[CountLeo]

09:26 PM on 07/15/2011

Have you read the study? It's available on-line and free at the American Journal of Epidemiology.

[Ergon]

09:43 PM on 07/15/2011

I tend to trust studies not funded by cell phone manufacturers or carried out by epidemiologists, the old saw about lairs and statistics being applicable in this case. On the other hand, exposeure to EMF's lead to genetic damage http://www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/s-o02issue.pdf

[mmulkeen]

09:49 PM on 07/15/2011

Actually oly the abstract is free but to down load the full article you have a pay Oxford Journals.

[ProudToBeVeryLiberal]

08:45 PM on 07/15/2011

Check for corporate contributions to this "study"... It never hurts to follow the money.

[Lightwins]

08:55 PM on 07/15/2011

Exactly! I don't trust this. I have seen too many other studies saying cell phones are dangerous. And it is just common sense that if you hold radiation to your head daily it would be damaging to your health in some way.

[DingoBuzzy]

09:17 PM on 07/15/2011

Ok, do you trust the scientific community when they say that global warming is real? Or that vaccines are safe?

Just when does the scientific community become a bunch of shills? When it suits your politics?

[CountLeo]

09:31 PM on 07/15/2011

What peer reviewed studies are their other than the WHO meta-study that argues absolutely nothing definitive except for a big maybe. And here's something for you - you are swimming in a bath of radio, television, and phone signals even as we speak. The phone, radio, or television only converts them for you...

[mmulkeen]

09:47 PM on 07/15/2011

The contact author of this study works at a French NGO the International Agency for Research on Cancer, so hard to tell if there was any industry funding at all. The fact remains most studies have not found a connect with cancer and cell phones and it seems doubtful that all of studies are somehow unduly influenced by industry.

[Ergon]

08:43 PM on 07/15/2011

Note to mods and techie oriented: why are my paragraphs and line breaks not working?

[Ergon]

08:39 PM on 07/15/2011

On the other hand, a study by a famous neurosurgeon shows there is an increased risk of CANCEROUS brain tumours http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/mobile-phones-more-dangerous-than-smoking-802602.html "The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks. It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long. Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced"

[Brad T Casali]

08:56 PM on 07/15/2011

A tumor is, by definition, a cancer.

[Ergon]

09:12 PM on 07/15/2011

Not when they're benign and unable to metastasize.

[DingoBuzzy]

09:16 PM on 07/15/2011

Um no they're not. Ever heard of benign tumors?

[DuKeT]

08:30 PM on 07/15/2011

They will go back and forth - "yes, they do" - "no, they don't" - for a long time. And then it will come out that they indeed do. Just like sun exposure causes skin cancer. Yep, it might take a while.

Moderation is the key. Those that spend hours on a cell phone, dozens of times per day . . . you can count on it.

Every day, I take me mum to a local radiation treatment center to get her Squamous cell carcinoma blasted (5 times a week for 4 weeks). The cause? The sun . . . and for the past 15-20 years she needed to take D supplements because she didn't get enough daily time in the sun. But as the doc said, "This probably is from exposure 20, 30, or 40 years ago but it is definitely from the sun."

Keep that in mind and the question is . . . how much is too much? Oh, and if you want a tan and go to a tanning salon, choose the spray booth.

[palindrom]

09:51 PM on 07/15/2011

There is a huge difference between solar ultraviolet and the much lower frequencies used in cell phones. With ultraviolet, the energy per photon is quite large and causes obvious damage. With radio frequencies, the energy per photon is minuscule, and there is no plausible physical mechanism for damage. That doesn't mean that it's entirely impossible that cell phones cause cancer, but it would be extremely surprising if they did. There's really only one Swedish group that finds a link -- all the other studies are inconclusive or negative.

[DuKeT]

12:22 AM on 07/16/2011

Ahhh . . . I was not saying that solar radiation and radio frequencies are comparable. You missed my point - which was merely that definitive proof will be a long time coming and, even then, people will continue to not heed the warnings. Cell phone use is not even much older than a couple of decades. IOW - timeline.

My point about me mum was merely to point out that it often takes a very long time for things (like tumors/cancer/etc) to show up. She has never been one to get much sun (hence the Vit D remark) - and if she, of all people, ends up with skin cancer, many decades later . . .

One thing that one must look at too, regarding all of these studies, who is funding them? Most people put faith in the FDA and even they (FDA officials) admit that the pharmas falsify as much as 15-20% of their studies to get FDA approval. Inconclusive? Long term use has not shown up yet? Timeline again.

My point - common sense and moderation. But I wouldn't doubt it one bit that in the long run, that extensive use will have negative results.

[den1953]

07:14 PM on 07/15/2011

If you put the cell phone on speaker can you get second hand tumors?

[BeyondTheBull]

07:05 PM on 07/15/2011

Excessive cell phone usage with phone pressed against your ear/head can cause tumors (it's like putting your head in a microwave oven on very, very low power). Depending on the technology used (e.g., CDMA-Verizon ...or GSM-AT&T) the probability of developing tumors vary. CDMA is the LEAST probable for developing tumors. The type of cancer is called "acoustic neuroma", and are generally benign. The cell phone industry does not want you to know the possible hazardous effects because of the obvious ... less usage means less money and profits for them. Using an earbud helps.

[WaitForIt]

08:02 PM on 07/15/2011

I beg to differ, people will still buy the same plans. Using a phone less therefore increases their profits since they don't have to pay the energy cost of sending your data around.

[Odrade]

06:43 PM on 07/15/2011

Ok, it'd be nice if they actually gave the names of the articles so that I could look them up myself to see where their funding came from to determine possible conflicts of interest.

[timbeaux]

06:39 PM on 07/15/2011

Well, then, it's coffee again. Or bacon. SOMETHING people like.