WHO study suggests link between cell phones and tumors

Oct 27, 2009 by Lin Edwards weblog
A woman dials a cell phone in her car

(PhysOrg.com) -- Preliminary results of an International investigation by the World Health Organization (WHO) suggest there may be a "significantly increased risk" of some types of brain tumors after use of mobile phones for a decade or more.

The investigation lasted a decade and covered studies of 12,800 people in 13 countries during the period 2000 to 2004. Six of eight studies on found a link between an increased risk of the most common type of brain tumor, , and heavy use of mobile phones, with one finding a 39 percent increase. Of seven studies into a benign tumor of a nerve between the brain and the ear (acoustic neurinoma), two found an elevated risk in people using cell phones for ten years or more.

Previous studies have yielded inconclusive results, but head of the WHO study, Dr Elisabeth Cardis, said the report would include a public health message and a recommendation the use of mobile phones by young children should be restricted. She noted that cell phones can be an important tool in emergencies, and maintaining contact between parents and children can be reassuring, and therefore she would not go as far as suggesting their use should be banned.

Dr Cardis said that a number of studies have suggested possible deleterious effects of the radio frequency radiation emitted by mobile phones, and while these studies were limited and not yet definitive, precautions are important, especially in their use by children except for essential calls.

Critics of the study have pointed out that it included people who only made one call a week using a cell phone, and it did not include any children, both of which could underplay the results. They also point out the research was partly funded by the . Other critics have noted that some results suggested short-term use appeared to protect against cancer, which may indicate flaws in the studies.

Publication of the results of the 30 million dollar investigation has been delayed because of disagreements over the best way to present the conclusions, but the findings have been submitted and are expected to be published within the next few months.

Meanwhile, for people in the market for a new cell phone who are interested in limiting their exposure to radiation, the Environmental Working Group has published a guide to the radiation emitted by most models of cell phone, as explained in this article.

You can also reduce exposure by sending text rather than speaking, and by avoiding use if the signal is weak, because the radiation is greatest then. should also limit their use because their skulls are thinner and less able to protect their brains from the radiation.

© 2009 PhysOrg.com

Explore further: Quarter of prostate cancer patients may abandon 'watchful waiting' approach

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Cell phone may hurt child's health

Oct 09, 2007

Professor Kjell Mild of Sweden's Orbero University said young children are more at risk when using cell phones because of their thinner skulls.

Choosing a Low Radiation Cell Phone

Sep 10, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- An Environmental Working Group (EWG) team has released a consumer guide on the radiation levels emitted by over 1,000 cell phones sold in the U.S. The guide is the most comprehensive ever ...

Study finds mobiles excite brain cells

Jun 27, 2006

We know cell phones affect the brain. But the question of whether the electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile handsets that excite brain cells actually do any harm remains unanswered, however, by researchers ...

Bias affects cell phone cancer risk findings

Oct 15, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of South Korean and American researchers has found studies of possible links between cell phones and brain tumors and other cancers vary in quality, and those suggesting there is little ...

Do cell phones increase brain cancer risk?

Oct 20, 2008

Major research initiatives are needed immediately to assess the possibility that using cellular phones may lead to an increased risk of brain tumors, according to an editorial in the November issue of the journal Surgical Ne ...

Recommended for you

Unraveling the 'black ribbon' around lung cancer

Apr 17, 2014

It's not uncommon these days to find a colored ribbon representing a disease. A pink ribbon is well known to signify breast cancer. But what color ribbon does one think of with lung cancer?

User comments : 17

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

BBPhD
3 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2009
This is horrible enough, but you should add that for X-ray induced brain tumors you have to wait 20-30 years to see the real effects. So what we have at 10 years is the tip of the iceberg. Also, they have not looked at memory loss and other sorts of brain damage, which I think are being caused based on Salford et al. 2003 findings on microwave exposure.
NameIsNotNick
4.5 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2009
Yet another study! Do enough of them and eventually everyone will get results that satisfy their preconceived notions...
OregonWind
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 27, 2009
Just wait another week and another study will change the whole thing again.
ealex
5 / 5 (1) Oct 27, 2009
Wait, isn't everyone going to throw their cellphones away now?

Awww and I went ahead and did it already. Darn!
Sean_W
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2009
"Six of eight studies..." so this was a meta-analysis? Meta-analysis is a statistical term meaning "utter clump of lies" in laymen's English. There were probably 290 or so studies that contradicted the conclusion but the rules of meta-analysis (there are no actual rules you just ignore the ones you want) helped them squeeze out the right results. Meta-analysis is so commonly used to prove the unprovable that science writers avoid even using the term when reporting on results. Even the public has caught on to the scam.
CarolinaScotsman
4.7 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2009
A recent study has proven that 80% of all cancer is caused by research studies.

Seriously, if someone is concerned about any possible risk, all they have to do is use a headset. A simple fix, but then that's common sense; something that seems to elude so many.
magpies
4 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2009
Luckly I dont use a cell phone... but im all for cell phone bans because of second hand calling.
Rawley
4 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2009
I don't see how non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
Egnite
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2009
A study concerned by WHO is blatantly bs. I guess cellphones cause cancer just as much as herbs/vitamins don't help prevent it? The WHO have thier own agenda and anything they spout is a step forward in enforcing it.

Google Codex Alimentarius and let me know why they think making herbs/viatmins a prescription drug is necessary, or why the planet requires to be "immunised"/poisioned to reduce deaths from a low-risk flu?

I never used to be so sceptic or humour conspiracys but when they are obviously after money and don't care about peoples wellbeing (like with the Codex Alimentarius), you begin to question other things this "health organisation" promotes.
superhuman
3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2009
I don't see how non-ionizing radiation can cause cancer.

DNA is constantly being damaged by reactive metabolic byproducts, natural radiation and carcinogens and repaired by specialized protein complexes. It is enough for cell phone radiation to somehow destabilize those complexes decreasing efficiency of repair to potentially lead to higher cancer incidence.

Destabilization could be due electromagnetic forces exerted on charged and dipole molecules or heating.
gwargh
2.8 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2009
I love all the conspiracy theorists here. Because, you know, damaging the cell phone business somehow helps the WHO in their goal of world domination and/or getting more money.

Yet another study! Do enough of them and eventually everyone will get results that satisfy their preconceived notions...


I believe the idea behind science IS to do a lot of studies, and see what tallies up. If they're done well (which these are, as far as I've read through them), it's fairly hard to fabricate results.

rubberman
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2009
This would be the first time humans did something that they thought was safe, then turned out to not be...
wiserd
3 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2009
Regarding non-ionizing radiation; Cell phone radiation interferes with gated ion channels. Personally, I get horrible brain fog of I use my cell phone too much, so I've stopped.

Life can be affected by very small stimuli.
Incidentally, photosynthesis doesn't rely on ionizing radiation.
jerryd
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 31, 2009
Regarding non-ionizing radiation; Cell phone radiation interferes with gated ion channels. Personally, I get horrible brain fog of I use my cell phone too much, so I've stopped.

Cell phone don't put out enough energy to do much of anything. The only thing they do is heat the very top layer of skin a millionth of a degree. Your body make millions of times more than a cell phone does.
If you are having a brain fog it's either psychosomatic or having problems understanding the garbled speech they put out. It's not from RF. Why do I know this? Because we are bombarded by far higher amounts RF all the time and have been for 5 decades.

(q)Life can be affected by very small stimuli.
Incidentally, photosynthesis doesn't rely on ionizing radiation.


Plants are designed to use photons, not RF. Photons, infrared, ultraviolet, etc are far higher energies and do far more damage than the very, very low levels of RF every could. Get over it.

superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2009
Cell phone don't put out enough energy to do much of anything. The only thing they do is heat the very top layer of skin a millionth of a degree.

They put out enough energy to send an electromagnetic signal to base stations kilometers away. The heating is not a millionth of a degree but something on the order of 0.1 degree.

The whole point is that it is possible although far from proven that cell phones have a detrimental effect on human health and further research is certainly warranted. If you use your phone a lot it is also a good idea to get a headset to be safe.

Wikipedia seems to have a balanced article on the subject:
http://en.wikiped...d_health
superhuman
1 / 5 (1) Nov 01, 2009
Plants are designed to use photons, not RF. Photons, infrared, ultraviolet, etc are far higher energies and do far more damage than the very, very low levels of RF every could. Get over it.

RF is mediated by photons too, photons mediate all electromagnetic interactions from gamma rays to low frequency radio waves.
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2009
If they are so concerned about the risks why don't they advocate outlawing cell phones? It would be the right thing to do, a step above outlawing CO2.

More news stories

Vietnam battles fatal measles outbreak

Vietnam is scrambling to contain a deadly outbreak of measles that has killed more than 100 people, mostly young children, and infected thousands more this year, the government said Friday.

Continents may be a key feature of Super-Earths

Huge Earth-like planets that have both continents and oceans may be better at harboring extraterrestrial life than those that are water-only worlds. A new study gives hope for the possibility that many super-Earth ...

Researchers successfully clone adult human stem cells

(Phys.org) —An international team of researchers, led by Robert Lanza, of Advanced Cell Technology, has announced that they have performed the first successful cloning of adult human skin cells into stem ...

Under some LED bulbs whites aren't 'whiter than white'

For years, companies have been adding whiteners to laundry detergent, paints, plastics, paper and fabrics to make whites look "whiter than white," but now, with a switch away from incandescent and fluorescent lighting, different ...