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In fact, the Interphone study necessarily evaluated out of date technology in use long ago and included no children or teenagers, left out those who are most highly exposed, like rural users who get higher exposures because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
Loading comments… 
We saw the same thing with the Microwave
New Technology poorly understood by laymen + the word "radiation
the form of electromag
"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 frequencie
http://www
Also, does this radiation also extend to wireless internet as well?
Wi-fi was not studied as part of Interphone
Texting is not as bad as holding the phone to your head, but it is nonetheles
See: http://www
For a more through analysis of these issues, read the first section of the bioinitiat
http://www
"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
"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
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 285,800,00
http://www
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 electromag
Why then would the effects of EMF be termed "negligibl
I do fear much of our environmen
1) The largest study to date is unable to draw decisive conclusion
"The long awaited World Health Organizati
2) BUT.... However, yet....not so fast:
"Among the leading epidemiolo
I wouldn't call this horrible, horrible science. What it is, is tremendous
Clearly, it makes NO sense to look for scapegoats
France (and I normally love to bash the Frenchies :) seem wise in all ready having undertaken precaution
I would not worry about reconcilin
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, correlatio
I would hope so!
The question I am asking is how do the scientists in this study reconcile the discord in the experiment
The leaders in cancer research can't reconcile this alone. The conclusion
The bias in the production of data or in analysis (selectivi
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 epidemiolo
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 conclusion
Any insights and even answers would be greatly appreciate
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, correlatio
It seems to me, as I have now indicated several times, if what Moskowitz/
I hope this helps.
http://jco
There are strong criticisms of this paper (by individual
http://jco
http://jco
"In our opinion, this meta-analy
The opinion of the experts is certainly not reportable as a consensus that cell phones increase risk for cancer. These opposing experts also have "considera
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, importantl
1) How does one reconcile the radiation from natural sources, like the sun and other astronomic
2) The mechanisms that cause cancer are relatively not known at this level of electromag
SO...how can one make a reasonable causal assumption between these two disconnect
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 notwithsta
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.