EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Devra Davis, Ph.D.

GET UPDATES FROM Devra Davis, Ph.D.
 

Cell Phones and Brain Cancer: The Real Story

Posted: 5/22/10

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In fact, the Interphone study necessarily evaluated out of date technology in use long ago and included no children or teenagers, left out those who are most highly exposed, like rural users who get higher exposures because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

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 count...
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 count...
 
  • Comments
  • 203
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WilliamTheV
I drank what? -Socrates
03:26 AM on 06/14/2010
As cell phones are adopted and more regularly used by more and more people, you are going to more and more cell phone users getting some form of cancer, as the increase in the number of regular users is so great that undoubtedl­y the population­s of cell phone users and people with cancer will overlap to a greater and greater degree.

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.
12:07 AM on 05/26/2010
Yes, I agree. Being cautious is a good way to go. I do not own a cell phone because from the beginning I have been aware that their were possible risks involved. I feel good that there is at least one less thing I have to worry about. Of course most studies are usually way behind and come when it is too late to act upon the recommenda­tions. I think people need to realize that they are the only ones who will save their butts. Don't wait another twenty years to find out you have been killing yourself with your cellphone. Throw that cellphone in the trashcan now!
01:24 AM on 05/26/2010
I prefer to consider relative risk rather than 'possible risk'. When I'm out hiking, fishing or even walking home from the train station at night, my cellphone makes me feel 'safer' - because I can call for help when needed. I'm not sure I could leave my house if I worried about all the 'possible risks' out there.
11:43 AM on 05/25/2010
This should put things into perspectiv­e

"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
12:11 AM on 05/26/2010
" without any adverse health consequenc­e being establishe­d" . What you have just said proves nothing. Why because no body I have ever heard of has ever done a study over a lifetime of a population group living with ambient radio waves. So yeah your right--abo­ut nothing!
11:16 AM on 05/25/2010
By cell phone usage are they talking about phone calls with cell phones or are they including text messaging with that? Im wondering since they mentioned headsets as being lower risk and I hardly use my cell phone for calling, mostly for texting.

Also, does this radiation also extend to wireless internet as well?
07:10 PM on 05/25/2010
"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
09:30 AM on 05/25/2010
Cable, am responding to your post (below), to which I could not reply, given it's embeddedne­ss.

"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.
09:34 AM on 05/25/2010
(cont., from above)

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%.....
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
11:24 AM on 05/25/2010
If you look here:

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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neutralino
Opposing pseudoscience 24/7
02:30 PM on 05/24/2010
I find it kind of odd that people who decided to bombard their brains with electromag­netic radiation are suddenly shocked - shocked! - to discover that this may not be a great idea.

Am I the only person who was paying attention during freshman biology in high school?
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
04:15 PM on 05/24/2010
Except for the fact that your brain is bombarded by electromag­netic radiation everyday of varying frequencie­s and amplitudes by any environmen­t you exist in (unless you choose to live in a completely dark room). Visible light counts as electromag­netic radiation.

Perhaps you should have also paid attention in physics as well.
12:17 AM on 05/25/2010
Don't mind cable–he's clearly suffering from some wireless-a­ttachment issues. Either that, or he's using this thread as an opportunit­y to audition for Motorolla'­s PR department­.

"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.
06:47 AM on 05/25/2010
That's what I thought was the case myself, and, hence, my deeply ingrained suspicion that not all forms of EMR, as they are existing and deployed by manufactur­er's manipulati­ons, are one and the same. Thank you for bringing this up.... have to do more reading on this.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
08:41 AM on 05/25/2010
Right...ra­ther than attack my arguments, just switch to ad hominem, its the tactic most often used by people who enjoy fear-monge­ring. It also tends to be the refuge of those who exhaust any actual logical arguments.
01:26 PM on 05/24/2010
What does 'double' the risk mean? What if the risk was negligible to start with?
04:50 PM on 05/24/2010
I'm an industrial electricia­n. We work around high voltage fairly often. High voltage creates lots of EMF. So much in fact, that I've gotten a noticeable shock from induced voltage on a steel fish tape while working under a 230 kVA line, for example. Retirees sometimes get cancer. They do not, however get any different form of cancer, or at any higher rate than you'd expect for people that might have had exposure to PCBs, or asbestos, or industrial solvents, or who might have been heavy smokers for many years. It's not the best data, I suppose, but enough to suggest to me that EMF effects are negligible­.
07:14 PM on 05/24/2010
I accept that for what it is, good anecdotal evidence. I do believe, however, that EMF can harm us. Our bodies are electical in nature. Informatio­n gleaned from many credible sources tell us that small circuits flow through us. Our cells communicat­e in a chemical/e­lectrical fashion. Physicists say we are light energy slowed down to a vibratory frequency that allows the energy to be perceived as matter. So, if we are energy and our body uses energy, then it would seem that stray EMFs could harm us.
08:04 PM on 05/24/2010
I'm a bit surprised that the cancer rates you mention for industrial electricia­ns in this sample "compares" (and I use the word as a layman, not a scientist here) to exposure to PCBs, asbestos, cigarette/­pipe smoke, and/or industrial solvents. Aren't those substances all proven carcinogen­s, specifical­ly litigable carcinogen­s, with proven industry track records for precisely those kinds of legal actions?
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?
01:25 PM on 05/24/2010
Whether or not the science is settled, it seems to me that the best course of action is to avoid using cell phones close to the head except for brief messages. I try to take the same precaution­ary approach to, amongst a myriad of other things, GM foods, high fructose corn syrup, hormone-la­ced foods, pesticides­, herbicides­, excessivel­y loud noise and Fox "News".
10:00 PM on 05/24/2010
I've been doing the same myself, for years, with that precaution­ary approach; already as an adolescent­. I developed a fascinatio­n with nutrition and would devour any and all books on the topic.

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.
12:32 AM on 05/26/2010
Ditto on the Fox News thing. They will cause more brain damage than turning on twenty cells phones and then eating them.
11:28 AM on 05/24/2010
Maybe the question shouldn't be whether or not cell phone cause brain cancer, but rather they cause tumors of the salivory glands which lie in the neck just next to the ear. Studies, the best one done in Israel, show that they do.
10:42 AM on 05/24/2010
Let's condense it for you and for others who may be interested­:

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.
ThinkCreeps
Seriously, it's time.
02:22 PM on 05/24/2010
Right. There's no evidence of anything beyond a modest increase in a very unlikely problem. Neverthele­ss, it does no harm to reduce exposure if possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Neutralino
Opposing pseudoscience 24/7
02:41 PM on 05/24/2010
This sounds sensible.

Clearly, it makes NO sense to look for scapegoats­. Blaming industry for a poor lifestyle choice is not justifiabl­e.
10:41 AM on 05/24/2010
My position is to look at THE leaders in cancer research and, if possible, cancer treatment, the facilities with the most credibilit­y, and take their word for how to approach the tenuous status of the unprovable­-beyond-a-­shadow-of-­a-doubt position we all (who follow this) find ourselves in. There are clear leaders in the field, the names are known, and out there. They are NOT funded by the cell phone militant-c­orporate complex.

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.
12:18 PM on 05/24/2010
"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."

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.
07:22 PM on 05/24/2010
Well, I hope you are not putting me in that camp of wackos a la Big Foot. I'm "evolved" to some extent, and have a PhD, but not in biochem or the sciences. I can take the bashing, as long as I know I am learning something substantiv­e, and I VERY much appreciate your taking the time to answer, and answer in significan­t detail. Very much thankful!

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!
10:41 AM on 05/24/2010
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.

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.
photo
cable1977
Against logic there is no armor like ignorance
11:33 AM on 05/24/2010
You are writing as though the science is settled. This is one case where there is considerab­le disagreeme­nt between the experts. The Moskowitz paper that you reference is found here:

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.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ddanimal
12:21 PM on 05/24/2010
There is disagreeme­nt between industry-f­unded experts, and non-indust­ry funded experts.

That makes it settled in my opinion: the industry is covering things up as best they can.
07:31 PM on 05/24/2010
Cable1977, I hope I did not at all appear or actually sound as if the science were settled. If by my saying that based on what the "one side" found (Muskovitz­/UCalBerk; U Pittsburg, and internatio­nal scientists from Sweden, Israel, Spain and Australia) I, too, am proceeding with caution, I did by no means indicate the matter was settled and the discussion over. To the contrary, there is much to learn, as your very helpful last paragraph there states.

Thank you, yet again, and very much for the links to the Muskovitz paper itself AND, importantl­y, to the critiques of that particular work.
10:15 AM on 05/24/2010
There are two pieces of evidence that these studies always leave out.

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.
08:56 AM on 05/24/2010
Great! Another product that will take us to an early grave, and we all use it. Wonderful.
05:16 AM on 05/24/2010
There is only one way to approach an article entitle the "Real Story"-- with healthy ( no intended) dose of skepticism­.
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.
10:19 AM on 05/24/2010
"there is reason for caution" - Why? I thought you just made the point that more study is needed?

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.
01:31 PM on 05/24/2010
I could try to explain to your the glaring lack of logic and rationalit­y in your post. But its doubtful you'd profit from it.