The long awaited World Health Organization Interphone study of more than 5,000 brain tumors that occurred between 2000-2004 and cell phone use failed to deliver a knock-out punch. This thirteen country report found what every study that has ever examined people who have used phones for a decades or more has determined-- top users of cell phones had a doubled risk of malignant tumors of the brain. When looking at all those in their study who had used cell phones to make one call a week for six months or more, compared to those who used cell phones less no such risk was evident. This is unsurprising.
The story behind the story needs to be told. First of all, although the news reports so far do not acknowledge this fact, Interphone is not the only study to find an increased risk in brain tumors with prolonged cell phone use. All studies that have been able to examine people a decade after heavy use began have found increased risk of brain tumors. Second the Interphone study completely ignored the fact that there is a growing experimental literature showing that pulsed microwave-like radiation from modern cell phones disrupts living cells and causes our DNA to become unstable -- signs of cancer and other chronic disease. Third, the Interphone study was delayed close to six years, while authors debated how to present their results. Completed in 2004 and promised by 2005, publication was delayed til now.
Among the leading epidemiologists on the team are those from Israel, Spain and Australia, who proclaim that we know enough now to tell people to take precautions. Others from Canada and Sweden are convinced that we lack sufficient evidence of harm and we should wait twenty years to find out whether or not current patterns of cell phone use in children and the rest of us will produce an epidemic of brain cancer. Much of their work happens to be sponsored by the cell phone industry and forms the basis for a study being launched of a quarter million people in Europe.
In fact, the Interphone study necessarily evaluated out of date technology in use long ago and included no children or teenagers, left out those who are most highly exposed, like rural users who get higher exposures because phones in remote areas emit more radiation trying to reach more distant antennas, did not take into account other experimental or epidemiologic studies on the subject and did not include cordless phone use--which can be just as high as that from cell phones. While most of the cell phone users in the world today are under age thirty, none of those in the study was. Scientists understand that brain tumors often take three or four decades to develop and less than one in ten people in this study had used a phone for even one decade.
Professor Joel Moskowitz of University of California Berkeley combined information from all other studies ever done on brain tumors and cell phones and found "consistent evidence that heavy cell phone use for a decade or longer increases brain tumor risk at least 30%." My colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh also reported similarly elevated risks of tumors of the hearing nerve in long-term cell phone users just last year.
No wonder the public is confused. Headlines of some U.K. papers proclaimed: Long term brain cancer risk increased in heavy cell phone users, while those of the National Cancer Institute's in-house online zine noted -- no general risk from cell phone use. In fact, both headlines are technically true, and there's the rub. All scientists agree that more research is needed. The question is what do we do, while we wait for that research? Should taxpayers in America stand by while information on this issue from other countries is amassed? The United States of America did not participate in this largest study of brain cancer and cell phone use ever carried out and currently there is almost no public health research underway on the questions of cell phone use and autism, chronic neurologic disease or cancer.
Studies by physician-researcher Lennart Hardell of Sweden -- regarded as some of the best efforts in the world on this challenging topic -- concur with the Interphone and Moskowitz results -- those who have used phones heavily for a decade have a doubled risk of brain tumors and teenagers who begin heavy cell phone use have between four to five times more brain tumors by their late twenties. In fact, the French are not waiting for further research on this matter, and are taking steps based on the notion that it is better to be safe than sorry--codifying advice from the European Environment Agency, the Finnish Nuclear Regulatory Safety Authority and the Israeli Health Ministry among others . Both chambers of the French legislature have recently passed legislation requiring a host of simple actions to reduce direct exposures to the brains from cell phones. For starters, all cell phones must be sold with an earpiece or headset to limit direct brain exposure to radiofrequency signals. Advertising to children below age fourteen is banned, as is giving cell phones to children under the age of six. In schools, the use of cell phones is forbidden during all teaching activities. Finally, phones must be sold with labels indicating potential risks from excessive use and the reported exposure in terms of the SAR (specific absorption rate).
In France, Professor Daniel Oberhausen--a leader in cell phone safety -- advises, "The absence of definitive human evidence at this point in time should not be misconstrued as proof of cell phone safety." Prof. Moskowitz, experts from a number of countries and I agree with the French policies: cell phone use should be curtailed in children and should include warning labels, After ten years of use, increased risks from tobacco and asbestos were not clearly evident, yet nobody today doubts that we waited far too long before addressing these important health hazards. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we should promote simple precautions to reduce direct exposure to the brain by using headsets, speaker phones and texting. This will protect us from whatever health hazards may emerge decades later and also encourage safer development of this revolutionary technology in the meantime.
Award-winning scientist and author, Devra Lee Davis is Founder of Environmental Health Trust, a National Book Award finalist, Carnegie Science Medal winner, author of Disconnect--the truth about cell phone radiation and health, what the industry has done to hide it, and what you can do to protect your family, Dutton, coming September, 2010, and Visiting Professor, Georgetown University. She was the Founding Director of the Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology at the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, 1983-1993, a Presidential appointee in the Clinton Adminstration to the National Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, and Founding Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, 2004-2009.
Follow Devra Davis, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DevraLeeDavis
David Katz, M.D.: Cell Phones And Brain Cells: Where The Two Meet
Devra Davis, Ph.D.: Cell Phone Radiation: Is It Dangerous?
Bill Davenhall: Cancer Maps: The Power of Geomedicine at Work
Cell Phone Radiation Differs Between Models
Results of cell phone cancer study inconclusive
Cell Phones and Brain Cancer -- the Real Story
5 ways to reduce cell-phone radiation
Cell phone radiation levels - CNET Reviews
Limit Your Exposure to Cell Phone Radiation | Environmental ...
Mobile phone radiation and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We saw the same thing with the Microwave
New Technology poorly understood by laymen + the word "radiation"= unfounded fears
the form of electromagnetic radiation used by cell phones (electromagnetic radiation is a fancy term for light) is, unlike anything to the left of the visible spectrum (UV, X-Ray, Gamma, etc) is non-ionizing, meaning that it cannot ionize atoms, and therefore cannot alter the chemical makeup of substances, further, that means it cannot cause mutations, which means no cancer. For a reference, Infrared radiation (like the kind our body gives off in the form of heat) is more energetic, and has a shorter wavelength and higher frequency than that given off by cell phones, and is therefore more likely to give you cancer.
"In fact, due to their lower frequency, at similar RF exposure levels, the body absorbs up to five times more of the signal from FM radio and television than from base stations. This is because the frequencies used in FM radio (around 100 MHz) and in TV broadcasting (around 300 to 400 MHz) are lower than those employed in mobile telephony (900 MHz and 1800 MHz) and because a person's height makes the body an efficient receiving antenna. Further, radio and television broadcast stations have been in operation for the past 50 or more years without any adverse health consequence being established."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs304/en/index.html
Also, does this radiation also extend to wireless internet as well?
Wi-fi was not studied as part of Interphone, and the radiation it emits is at a similar but slightly higher frequency. For me personally, and for several others I know, it has the worst effect of any wireless technology I've encountered. I become totally unable to think clearly get nauseous when in a room where it is being used.
Texting is not as bad as holding the phone to your head, but it is nonetheless inadivsable. The concern exclusively about cancer is somewhat myopic–tumors don't just spring fully-formed out of nowhere, they are indicators of systemic biological problems that take time to develop. Wireless technolgy can have unexpected consequences, even for people who think they're not sensitive to it.
See: http://www.magdahavas.com/2010/04/01/dect-phones-affect-the-heart/
For a more through analysis of these issues, read the first section of the bioinitiative report:
http://www.next-up.org/pdf/BioInitiativeReportComplete.pdf
"So you do or do not consider the rate of 10 per 100,000 to be rare? Or do you have any evidence that the rate is much higher? As a comparison, the incidence of lung cancer is 1.3% in non-smokers (that's 13 in 1000) and in smokers its 17.2% (that's 172 in 1000). That also represents an increased risk of 1323% due to smoking (compared to the 30% increase in heavy phone users or the 20% decreased risk in non-heavy phone users).
"American nose-dive into full on cell phone use."
Are you aware that a country like Japan has far more cell phone use than the US?"
I am, esp. given your insights, weighing the arguments and am NOT at all saying we know anything beyond a doubt. Far from it. I am indicating, below, that the numbers-crunching to date doesn't give us any definite answers. I am, at the same time, very skeptical that EMR does not cause some kind of problem, specifically cancer, because there still is so much debate ongoing.
And, indeed, I am aware of Japan's use; and mentioned only the US, so far in that context, because the US numbers/% of mobile phones in use is at 285,800,000+/91% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_mobile_phones_in_use). Yes the Japanese come in at 84%, though Wikipedia is hardly a peer reviewed forum. Gernany comes in at 130%.....
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0933605.html
It appears that Japan and the US are actually pretty close per capita with Japan coming in @ 84% of the population versus 82.9% of the population for the US.
I think it is still important to consider the absolute risk. You didn't answer the question of whether a change in risk of 2-3 per 100,000 is really a strong increase in risk, especially given that the normal risk is around 9 per 100,000. Its really nothing compared to the increase in cancer risk compared with smoking.
Am I the only person who was paying attention during freshman biology in high school?
Perhaps you should have also paid attention in physics as well.
"All light is electromagnetic radiation, too" is a great corporate talking point, but it has little to do with the fact that artificial, pulsed microwave radiation–for which there is no precedent in our evolutionary history–is making people sick and giving them cancer.
Why then would the effects of EMF be termed "negligible," esp. if cell phone users are experiencing, perhaps, comparable increases in cancer? In the cases of the other hazards, litigants have grounds to sue...wouldn't they w/ cell phones?
I do fear much of our environment is truly poisoned and the cataclysmic events occasioned by the BP oil speak merely portend of more such unstoppable "accidents." The cell phone debate won't be going away any time for sure.
1) The largest study to date is unable to draw decisive conclusions at this point, itself:
"The long awaited World Health Organization Interphone study of more than 5,000 brain tumors that occurred between 2000-2004 and cell phone use failed to deliver a knock-out punch."
2) BUT.... However, yet....not so fast:
"Among the leading epidemiologists on the team are those from Israel, Spain and Australia, who proclaim that we know enough now to tell people to take precautions. "
I wouldn't call this horrible, horrible science. What it is, is tremendously complex and there are numerous vested interests in the outcomes.
Clearly, it makes NO sense to look for scapegoats. Blaming industry for a poor lifestyle choice is not justifiable.
France (and I normally love to bash the Frenchies :) seem wise in all ready having undertaken precautionary steps at this point.
I would not worry about reconciling the radiation from natural sources with the "unnatural" (hence, in this case "man made," as in cell phone, medical testing equipment, etc.) -- why? The scientists themselves are often looking at the impact of the natural as part of and embedded within the broader context for discerning the actual effect of the un-natural, artificial and human-produced on humans.
They will continue, no doubt, to pursue both lines of inquiry.
There is no need to believe or assume one condition has to be "solved," prior to or as a condition of, the pursuit of the other scientific inquiry. What are examined, sought after are the elusive trends, correlations and possible cause-and-effect clarifications.
I would hope so!
The question I am asking is how do the scientists in this study reconcile the discord in the experimental results if there are natural/other emitters with the same if not more energetic energy profiles, in addition, to reconciling the fact that the mechanism for these tumors is still somewhat unknown.
The leaders in cancer research can't reconcile this alone. The conclusions drawn from the research in this article is overstepping some of the fundamental building blocks of physics.
The bias in the production of data or in analysis (selectivity), and the resolution of discordant results is what I see lacking in the conclusions drawn from these studies. They seem to only select "good" data and eventually they only accept one of many discordant experimental results. What about all of the people that DO get cancer with minimal cell phone use and what about the people that DON'T get cancer with extended cell phone use? Its obvious, the biological mechanisms are still unknown.
In my opinion, the current state of this topic should be null and anyone that makes huge life changes because of this faulty science, should probably join all of the other wackos in the "BigFoot" camp.
Like many, I/we are searching for answers and it's hard for me to fathom that the scientists from the other countries, "among the leading epidemiologists on the team are those from Israel, Spain and Australia, who proclaim that we know enough now to tell people to take precautions," have actually supported those working at UCalBerkeley, U Pittsburg.
Why haven't these other scientists raised at least some, if not all of the questions you have here?
Why, for example, haven't Muskovitz, et al. themselves directly questioned this, or, perhaps even more logically (if they can't see the design flaws and/or address the logic in their conclusions by offering more open-ended, as it were, tentative conclusions that state what you state), had their own assessments questioned by the other scientists named above?
Any insights and even answers would be greatly appreciated!
There is no need to believe or assume one condition has to be "solved," prior to or as a condition of, the pursuit of the other scientific inquiry. What are examined, sought after are the elusive trends, correlations and possible cause-and-effect clarifications.
It seems to me, as I have now indicated several times, if what Moskowitz/UCalBerkeley, U Pitt, Cleveland Clinic (and beyond those cited here, incl. at Johns Hopkins and Mayo Clinic, MD Anderson, too, as I only vaguely recall) have warned us about thus far, then there is a sign that we need to be on the alert. After all, these folks usually know what they are talking about; they have considerable training and education in these very specialized areas of inquiry, they submit to rigorous peer review, and have build such credible resumes to date, that their previous detractors usually end up concurring with their conclusions.
I hope this helps.
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/27/33/5565
There are strong criticisms of this paper (by individuals with no connection to the industry) including:
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/28/7/e121
http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/full/28/7/e123
"In our opinion, this meta-analysis is an example of what happens when authors may have the technical skills of performing a meta-analysis, but are unfamiliar with the topic. We urge Myung et al and other scientists intending to conduct meta-analyses or systematic literature reviews on mobile phone use and brain tumor risk to follow the suggestion made by Rothmann9 and explore the methodologic differences between studies intensively."
The opinion of the experts is certainly not reportable as a consensus that cell phones increase risk for cancer. These opposing experts also have "considerable training and education in these very specialized areas of inquiry, they submit to rigorous peer review, and have build such credible resumes to date" and many are not aligned with the industry.
That makes it settled in my opinion: the industry is covering things up as best they can.
Thank you, yet again, and very much for the links to the Muskovitz paper itself AND, importantly, to the critiques of that particular work.
1) How does one reconcile the radiation from natural sources, like the sun and other astronomical objects. According to quantum mechanics, we are hit with much more energetic particles, that are naturally created, all day long.
2) The mechanisms that cause cancer are relatively not known at this level of electromagnetic energy.
SO...how can one make a reasonable causal assumption between these two disconnected concepts, that in themselves have are not fully understood.
Horrible, horrible science.
The fact of the matter seems to be that the scientific community is not in a firm agreement on this at all, (data massaged here notwithstanding).
More study is needed but there is reason for caution, especially with young children. Of course objective analysis of the data won't sell many books, but that's another matter altogether which has little to do the science.
If you feel there is a reason for caution, then you shouldn't let your kids leave the house and should keep them in a basement, shielded from most all EM radiation, cause your kids are getting huge doses all day long.