Mobile Causing Cancer

If you ever needed more reassurance that endlessly chatting on your mobile won't damage your health, here it is. Two separate studies have found that mobile phones don't increase your risk of developing cancer.

The Tokyo Women’s Medical University recently studied 322 people with various forms of brain cancer and 683 people without such diseases. Each subject was rated according to how many years they have used a mobile phone for and how long each they spend chatting every day.

Claimed to be the first study to look at the effects of radiation from mobile phones on different parts of the brain, it failed to find any evidence that mobile phone use can lead to brain cancer.

Separately, Professor Bernard Stewart from the University of New South Wales created a banding system to categorise a person’s risk of developing various forms of cancer, according to their actions, including the use of a mobile phone.

Related stories

* Scientist warns against technology addiction

* Mobile operators team up against child abuse

* Dell developing Google Android handset, moles claim

* Pink shades wash over Palm and BlackBerry

* Will you go 'Radio Ga Ga' over Sony Ericsson's FM handsets?

* Nokia grabs 40% of phone market for first time

* Plantronics talks up Bluetooth headsetage

The five bands, which range from proven to unlikely, place mobile phone use in the very lowest ‘carcinogenic risk’ category, along with drinking coffee and having breast implants. Unsurprisingly, smoking and drinking to excess will see you placed much further up the danger scale.

Prof Stewart’s banding system has already been applied to over 60 situations, including electromagnetic fields in the workplace.

So the general consensus seems to be that while long and frequent conversations on a mobile phone might not put you at risk of developing cancer, sucking on ciggies and knocking back gin while you're doing so, isn’t such a good idea.

Mobile Side-Effects - Part I

NEW YORK -- Physicians are seeing long-term side effects with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors far in excess of what was expected from clinical trial data, Dr. Norman Sussman said at a psychopharmacology update sponsored by New York University.

If these particular side effects -- sleep disturbances, sexual dysfunction, and weight gain -- are problematic for patients, one of the newer non-SSRI antidepressants may be a better choice, he said. Of course, these drugs have their own particular side effect profiles.

When SSRIs first appeared a decade ago, their favorable side effect profile was a key selling point. They were clearly safer and easier to use than tricyclics and monoamine oxidase inhibitors and, above all, better tolerated by patients.

But experience has shown that some side effects are more common and problematic than initially expected, said Dr. Sussman, director of the psychopharmacology research and consultation service at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York.

Depression is a chronic, recurrent disorder, so long-term side effects actually may be more important than acute ones in terms of patient compliance and quality of life, and this has come to guide Dr. Sussman's choice of antidepressants.

Early-onset side effects may be responsible for rapid withdrawals from treatment, but some of the most troubling of these -- nausea, diarrhea, headache, and agitation -- will remit in 2-3 weeks.

A knottier problem is adverse effects that persist as long as the patient takes the medication, such as sexual dysfunction and sleep disturbances. Also particularly troubling are those, like weight gain, that don't even develop until late in treatment. "These are the ones that are not in the insert, which is based on short-term studies," Dr. Sussman said.

Significant insomnia affects 15%-20% of patients taking SSRIs, twice the rate with placebo. Polysomnography has consistently found that these drugs cause activation during the night: In addition to insomnia, bruxism, sweating, and periodic limb movement are common. Vivid dreams and nightmares also occur. With ongoing treatment, increasing numbers of patients report lethargy and fatigue, he said.

"There are a lot of data showing that people who sleep poorly are more likely to relapse and that suicide risk is higher," he said.

Sleep problems often require concurrent medication: 22%-34% of patients taking SSRIs also are prescribed sedatives or hypnotics, Dr. Sussman said.

Sexual dysfunctions are among the most distressing SSRI side effects. Decreased libido and delayed or absent orgasm are the best known, but there are others, such as the "yawning-excitement syndrome." Patients experience sexual arousal when they yawn, often progressing to orgasm. "This is probably underreported. Patients often say, 'If you hadn't asked me, I wouldn't have mentioned it,'" he said.

Perhaps the most unexpected SSRI-related problem to emerge has been weight gain, which often begins only after several months of therapy. This side effect has not been shown to be frequent or severe in controlled studies but has been reported to occur in 18%-50% of patients in some open-label studies.

Because this runs counter to the image of the drug, many physicians and patients are unprepared to deal with it. "Some physicians tell patients, 'I can't understand why you're gaining weight -- you're on an SSRI,'" Dr. Sussman said.

Greg Keuterman, a spokesman for Eli Lilly & Co., manufacturer of Prozac (fluoxetine), declined to comment except to point out that "this is anecdotal evidence."

"We're approved by the FDA for long-term treatment of depression," he added.

Pfizer Inc., the maker of Zoloft (sertraline), and SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Paxil (paroxetine), did not respond to requests for comment.

These observations do contrast with what the clinical trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration by pharmaceutical companies show, Dr. Sussman said. It would be nice if these long-term side effects were studied in clinical trials comparing different antidepressants.

Some of the newer antidepressants are less likely to cause the types of long-term problems that lead patients to discontinue SSRIs, he said.

Of course, it is possible that unexpected side effects will emerge over the long term with these antidepressants as well, Dr. Sussman said.

With venlafaxine (Effexor), "the side effects are the same as with SSRIs: insomnia, somnolence, lethargy and fatigue, and weight gain, but they are less intense." The new extended-dose formulation causes lower peak plasma levels, which appears to make the drug more tolerable. Notably less significant is nausea, which was a problem with the immediate-release form of venlafaxine, Dr. Sussman said.

Mirtazapine (Remeron) causes no gastrointestinal problems, sexual dysfunction, or insomnia over the long term, but difficulties are likely to occur early. Patients should be advised that while somnolence at the start of therapy may be "overwhelming," it usually lasts only 2-3 days. "You need to counsel patients to stick with it," he said.

Increased appetite and weight gain also may be marked in the first stage of therapy but will generally plateau after 2-3 months. "[Treatment with mirtazapine] works only if the patient trusts you that these effects are time limited and treatable," he said.

European trials of mirtazapine reported less trouble with initial weight gain and somnolence, perhaps because higher doses were used. "Most [clinicians] now agree on starting at 30 mg rather than 15 mg," Dr. Sussman said.

Nefazodone (Serzone) appears to cause little sexual dysfunction and minimal agitation and carries a low risk of weight gain. It enhances sleep quality and reduces awakenings. The most common side effects -- nausea, sedation, and dizziness -- are generally limited to the beginning of treatment and are dose related. "They diminish with each week of treatment," he said.

Physicians should be aware of the fact that patients who are switched directly from SSRIs to nefazodone experience a higher than expected rate of side effects.

Once-daily dosing in the evening can minimize daytime sedation and dizziness with nefazodone in patients who have been stabilized on the standard twice-a-day schedule, he said.

Bupropion (Wellbutrin) has been associated with headache, nausea, and dry mouth, but it is well tolerated by most patients, particularly in the long term. The sustained-release form appears to reduce seizure risk, which has been a concern with the drug. But bupropion still should not be given to patients who may be prone to seizures, Dr. Sussman said.

Are mobile phones wiping out our bees?

It seems like the plot of a particularly far-fetched horror film. But some scientists suggest that our love of the mobile phone could cause massive food shortages, as the world's harvests fail.

They are putting forward the theory that radiation given off by mobile phones and other hi-tech gadgets is a possible answer to one of the more bizarre mysteries ever to happen in the natural world - the abrupt disappearance of the bees that pollinate crops. Late last week, some bee-keepers claimed that the phenomenon - which started in the US, then spread to continental Europe - was beginning to hit Britain as well.

The theory is that radiation from mobile phones interferes with bees' navigation systems, preventing the famously homeloving species from finding their way back to their hives. Improbable as it may seem, there is now evidence to back this up.

Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) occurs when a hive's inhabitants suddenly disappear, leaving only queens, eggs and a few immature workers, like so many apian Mary Celestes. The vanished bees are never found, but thought to die singly far from home. The parasites, wildlife and other bees that normally raid the honey and pollen left behind when a colony dies, refuse to go anywhere near the abandoned hives.

The alarm was first sounded last autumn, but has now hit half of all American states. The West Coast is thought to have lost 60 per cent of its commercial bee population, with 70 per cent missing on the East Coast.

CCD has since spread to Germany, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece. And last week John Chapple, one of London's biggest bee-keepers, announced that 23 of his 40 hives have been abruptly abandoned.

Other apiarists have recorded losses in Scotland, Wales and north-west England, but the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs insisted: "There is absolutely no evidence of CCD in the UK."

The implications of the spread are alarming. Most of the world's crops depend on pollination by bees. Albert Einstein once said that if the bees disappeared, "man would have only four years of life left".

No one knows why it is happening. Theories involving mites, pesticides, global warming and GM crops have been proposed, but all have drawbacks.

German research has long shown that bees' behaviour changes near power lines.

Now a limited study at Landau University has found that bees refuse to return to their hives when mobile phones are placed nearby. Dr Jochen Kuhn, who carried it out, said this could provide a "hint" to a possible cause.

Dr George Carlo, who headed a massive study by the US government and mobile phone industry of hazards from mobiles in the Nineties, said: "I am convinced the possibility is real."

The case against handsets

Evidence of dangers to people from mobile phones is increasing. But proof is still lacking, largely because many of the biggest perils, such as cancer, take decades to show up.

Most research on cancer has so far proved inconclusive. But an official Finnish study found that people who used the phones for more than 10 years were 40 per cent more likely to get a brain tumour on the same side as they held the handset.

Equally alarming, blue-chip Swedish research revealed that radiation from mobile phones killed off brain cells, suggesting that today's teenagers could go senile in the prime of their lives.

Studies in India and the US have raised the possibility that men who use mobile phones heavily have reduced sperm counts. And, more prosaically, doctors have identified the condition of "text thumb", a form of RSI from constant texting.

Professor Sir William Stewart, who has headed two official inquiries, warned that children under eight should not use mobiles and made a series of safety recommendations, largely ignored by ministers.

Cancer clusters at phone masts

SEVEN clusters of cancer and other serious illnesses have been discovered around mobile phone masts, raising concerns over the technology’s potential impact on health.

Studies of the sites show high incidences of cancer, brain haemorrhages and high blood pressure within a radius of 400 yards of mobile phone masts.

One of the studies, in Warwickshire, showed a cluster of 31 cancers around a single street. A quarter of the 30 staff at a special school within sight of the 90ft high mast have developed tumours since 2000, while another quarter have suffered significant health problems.

The mast is being pulled down by the mobile phone after the presentation of the evidenceoperator O2 by local protesters. While rejecting any links to ill-health, O2 admitted the decision was “clearly rare and unusual”.

Phone masts have provoked protests throughout Britain with thousands of people objecting each week to planning applications. There are about 47,000 masts in the UK.

Dr John Walker, a scientist who compiled the cluster studies with the help of local campaigners in Devon, Lincolnshire, Staffordshire and the West Midlands, said he was convinced they showed a potential link between the angle of the beam of radiation emitted from the masts’ antennae and illnesses discovered in local populations.

“Masts should be moved away from conurbations and schools and the power turned down,” he said.

Some scientists already believe such a link exists and studies in other European countries suggest a rise in cancers close to masts. In 2005 Sir William Stewart, chairman of the Health Protection Agency, said he found four such studies to be of concern but that the health risk remained unproven.

27 deaths say residents

A mobile phone mast has caused 27 deaths and illnesses to people living close by, terrified residents said yesterday.

They believe the 82ft antenna emits potentially lethal microwaves and is responsible for a cluster of cancer cases over the last 13 years, some of which had proved fatal.

Families living in three streets are spending hundreds of pounds trying to protect themselves from what they believe are killer radiation rays.

They are lining their lofts and walls with tin foil, putting up metal mesh curtains and installing specialist windows.

The mast - owned by mobile phone giant Orange - was erected in Shooters Hill in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffs, in 1993.

Since then there has been seven deaths and 20 illnesses, which locals claim is linked to the towering structure dominating the skyline.

Four people, including neighbours Elsie Jones, Yvonne Greensmith and Freda Oakes, have died from brain haemorrhages, all within three years of each other.

Three other residents have succumbed to cancer, among them John Cornes and John Butler, who died from a brain tumour.

Four non-fatal cases of cancer have been reported, as well as three people suffering irregular heartbeats, five who have constant headaches and sleeplessness and six who have high blood pressure.

Two have also complained that their epilepsy has worsened significantly in the last ten years. The three worst affected streets are Cherrywood Grove, Sandon Road and Milward Grove, which are all just yards from the mast.

Stoke-on-Trent City Council commissioned expert tests last year to find anything that would have a negative effect on human health but they found nothing.

Orange also insist the antenna - which collects and distributes signals from other masts- is safe but there are now growing calls to have it torn down.

Mother-of-two Karen Owens, aged 40, who lives 300 feet from the mast on Milward Grove, had a double mastectomy on Tuesday after contracting cancer.

She found out she had breast cancer back in May and is now terrified sons James, five and two-year-old Harry are being harmed.

Karen said: "Since I was diagnosed it has always been in the back of my mind that it was connected to the mast.

"I had some initial surgery and chemotherapy, but then I decided to have both breasts removed because I'm frightened of it coming back.

"The operation has been completed as expected. I feel rough but everything has gone to plan. There is no history of breast cancer in my family, and statistically I am very young to get it."

Chris Cornes lost her husband John to cancer four years ago and now uses about 50 rolls of tin foil to line her loft and bed headboard.

Monitoring equipment apparently showed one side of her home has much more microwave radiation than the other.

Jean Hopkins, who lives within feet of the mast, suffered from headaches until spending £1,000 on precautions.

She said: "I'm not a hypochondriac and I don't make things up. Residents shouldn't have to live like this. It destroys your quality of life."

Alfred Oakes, 81, has lived on Sandon Road for 51 years. He believes the mast, which is directly opposite his home, could be responsible for his skin cancer.

Stoke-on-Trent South MP Rob Flello wants research to see if residents' fears are justified.

He said: "I use a mobile phone, but that is my choice. People who buy a house and then a mast is put up have no choice."

Stoke-on-Trent City Council said its research the antenna was operating within national guidelines.

But opponents say the council report only looked at the possible heating effects of the microwaves, not their potential to cause biological problems, especially in the brain.

Dr Gerald Hyland, from the University of Warwick said his research revealed "quite a strong correlation" between health problems and where the beams of microwaves are strongest.

Digital mobile phone radiation operates at a similar frequency to electrical activities in the brain - and may cause sleeplessness, headaches and more serious illnesses.

Orange insist the mast will not cause any adverse affects to residents. Sue Hammett, Orange's community liaison officer said: "The latest fact sheet from the World Health Organisation said there were no adverse long-term or short-term health effects from this low-level radiofrequency and that came out in May.

"We appreciate this is a sensitive issue, but we believe our mobile phone stations are safe."

Is your call?

The ICNIRP (International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection), an NGO, is the dominant standard-setting body in the Western World, admirably working towards global harmonisation of standards.

However, many countries such as Russia, Poland, Switzerland, Italy and Austria plus most in the East openly say that ICNIRP guidelines are way too high and quite simply are not safe. China, for example, refuses point blank to allow mobile phones as powerful as those in the UK, having expressed serious health reservations and backed them with research. Toronto has guidelines a mere 500 times less!

A major issue is that the UK guidelines are based on the heating, or thermal, effects of microwaves where penetration is inversely proportional to frequency and ratings are based on absorption. The fallacy, of course is that bioeffects may well not relate to mere absorption ‘dose’ at all. There might be other ‘minor’ effects at play such as free-radical production, immune system degradation and lowered melatonin levels – but more of that later. With UK guidelines at least you know your ear won’t catch fire.

All clear?

In August 2005 the BBC, amongst many other UK media operators, covered the wonderful news that, ‘Mobile phone use does not raise the risk of cancer, at least in the first ten years of usage. The largest investigation to date shows this.’ The research they were referring to came from the Institute of Cancer Research, which studied 4000 people in 5 countries (British Journal of Cancer). A senior investigator added, “Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown”. Slightly puzzling was that the study, in my opinion, did not fully review brain cancer like gliomas and astrocytomas, rather it reviewed 678 people with acoustic neuroma, and 3553 without. As we said above, acoustic neuromas are not cancer, although they can indicate possible developments.

In January 2006 came another ‘major study’ (their words not mine) covered by all the British media proclaiming that, ‘The use of a mobile phone, either in the short or medium term, is not associated with an increased risk of glioma’.

However further analysis of the detail of the research by Powerwatch, and the H.e.s.e-uk (Human, Ecological, Social, Economic project in the UK) - both completely independent bodies comprising world-renowned scientists, professors and experts - highlighted that several of the most important research conclusions were dubious. Powerwatch stated that, most importantly, although drawing its conclusion about high-grade (fast growing) gliomas, the study sample excluded a large majority of them because, to quote the researchers, “We only interviewed 51% of those patients with glioma who were eligible, mainly because rapid death prevented us from approaching all of them”.

So the fact was that the research didn’t include the 49 per cent of people who had gliomas so badly they were dying from them! Even so the researchers managed to conclude that mobile phones were not associated with increased risk of malignancy.

“It is very disappointing that these well-respected scientists can draw such badly justified conclusions from their research,” reports Powerwatch.

Poor Conclusions?

But then the history of research studies giving mobile phones the ‘all clear’ seems littered with these accidental slip-ups and poor conclusions.

A The Abstract

Part of the problem stems from the publication of an ‘Abstract’ – a summary of conclusions taken from the full report for PR and media use. Independent bodies are increasingly concerned by a tendency to ‘spin’ the Abstract and leave concerning data to the research report detail. Unfortunately the media (and the Government) rarely look beyond the Abstract – the Abstract may even be released several days before the full report, by which time the media have covered the ‘story’, solely from the information in the Abstract; and rarely do they correct it if some other fact emerges at a later stage from the full report.

1.8 times more acoustic neuroma were found after 10 years mobile phone usage

For example, in October 2005 the International Interphone Mobile Phone Use and Health Study researchers failed to highlight in the research Abstract the finding that 1.8 times more acoustic neuroma were found after 10 years mobile phone usage, than during the 0-10 year period, even though this fact was present in the detail of the research. Rather in the Abstract it said that there was no heightened risk.

Eileen O’Connor of RRT and founder of SCRAM (another body that constantly watches the accuracy – or should I say inaccuracy – of the conclusions and PR releases sponsored by the mobile phone industry) is concerned with all matters connected with the possible dangers of Electromagnetic Frequencies. In fact I am indebted to her because she had this article reviewed for me by some of the top experts in the world.

They add that this ‘major’ 2006 study also failed to point out in its Abstract that significantly more gliomas were found in the brain at the side of the mobile phone use, than on the non-use side, although this was clearly the case in the research detail. Instead the Abstract said that the people researched did not remember the side they used!

The researchers also wrote that radio frequency fields emitted by mobile phones are ‘thought to be unable to cause malignancies by damage to DNA’. Well that was actually in direct disagreement with the findings of a number of already published studies where indeed DNA had been shown to be damaged by electromagnetic fields. For example: Lai & Singh (Washington State University, USA), Adlkofer (Reflex, EU), Zhengping Xu (China), Xu Xi Shan (Korea) amongst several others.

Now a new 2006 report published since the Interphone study from the department of Human Genetics, Guru Nanak Dev University in India has found a large increase in DNA damage and micro-nucleated cells in long term users of mobile phones.

B The Numbers

Another significant factor is the numbers involved in these studies. Let’s get it straight: Brain Tumours are rare. Brain tumours, both benign and malignant, have an incidence of 141 cases per million people per year in the US, of which malignant brain tumors total 73 cases per million people per year.

Think about it. If an epidemiology study reviews a million people across Europe – and they rarely review even half that number – using the above figures we are likely to only find 73 cases of malignant brain tumours. If you then try to assign subgroups (for example, by age) you could be looking at a group of just 10 per cent of this. 100,000 people, yes, but only 7.3 expected cases of a malignant brain tumour. Yet people jump up and down because the figure discovered in that subgroup ‘rose to 8.4’ or ‘fell to only 6.2’. The research may have covered 1 million people but we are expected to give credence to conclusions based on 1.1 people???

One Danish study using a cohort (all this means is a large population which is then studied) drew its conclusion from a ‘massive total cohort’ of 420,095 people……………..within, which there was 11 malignant tumours recorded when statistically 12.8 would have been expected. So are we supposed to conclude from this that mobile phones actually reduce the risk of brain tumours? Now, what was that about ‘lies, damn lies and statistics’???

Better is a ‘Case Control study’ where a person, say, with a brain tumour is matched perfectly (by age, lifestyle etc) to a person without. The person then completes a questionnaire to study for example their current, correct mobile phone usage patterns. However, rarely do these ‘large’ Epidemiology studies use a questionnaire, rendering them virtually useless technically as pieces of research. Moreover, such studies simply did not take place ten years ago, the volumes of mobile users was not that great, and it is almost impossible to draw accurate long-term conclusions about phones not increasing risks of brain tumours.

The length of phone usage is a factor much more important than many people seem to acknowledge. Many experts conclude that cancer is a long time in the making – it may take 20 years or more. Yet digital phones have not been with us that long, their expansion (and that of all the paraphernalia that goes with them – like masts etc) has been dramatic and yet research reports draw ‘significant conclusions’ based on ‘mid-term/long-term usage.

C The red herring?

Finally, what is this preoccupation with brain tumours? I for one have the right to ask this question. Even though I lost my daughter to a glioma, I am far more concerned about reports of severe headaches, tinnitus, increasing levels of sickness, blood infections, even depression coming from our police forces who use high powered Tetra phones, or reports of immune system and sperm count declines, or melatonin inhibition. These factors could be far more widespread and might be filling the doctors surgeries daily whilst massive amounts of money worry whether the numbers of brain tumours have increased from 73 per million to 74. I think the technical term is ‘barking up the wrong tree’ or something about ‘red herrings’.

Inconsistency rules

As we reported above, the UK Government set up a whole review process under the Chairmanship of Sir William Stewart. This group basically concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove a problem existed, but they did at least urge caution, an often-ignored fact. (I have actually been invited to join Sir William’s new panel).

However, in 2000, the same year that the Stewart Report was commissioned by the UK Government, T-Mobil in Germany (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 regards to the health risks in the more general area of mobile telecommunications (for example, including long-term exposure to mast radiation). This review of over 220 peer-reviewed and published papers concluded, for example, that there was clear evidence of:

• The cancer initiating and cancer promoting effects of high frequency electromagnetic fields used by mobile telephone technology.
• Geno-toxic effects at power flux densities much lower than the guidelines, like single and double stranded DNA breaks and damage to chromosomes in experiments on cell cultures.
• High frequency electromagnetic fields influencing cell transformation, cell growth promotion and cell communication. This also pointed to a carcinogenic potential of the fields used for mobile telephony.
• Loss of fertility and teratogenic effects in animal studies.
• Disruptions of other cellular processes, like the synthesis of proteins and the control of cell functions by enzymes.
• Effects on the central nervous system, from neuro-chemical effects to modifications of the brain potentials and impairments of certain brain functions.
• Loss of memory and cognitive function was demonstrated in animal experiments. From experiments with volunteers, who were exposed to the fields of mobile telephones, there is clear evidence for influences on certain cognitive functions.
• Possible risks for the brain also arise from an increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier to potentially harmful substances, observed in several experiments on animals exposed to mobile telephone fields.
• Disruptions of the endocrine and the immune system. High frequency electromagnetic fields were shown to cause stress reactions, showing up in an increased production of stress hormones and leading to a reduction of the concentration of melatonin in the blood of exposed animals and humans.

Melatonin is a hormone and thus inter-reacts with your other hormones. Throw one out and they all go out. Melatonin has been shown to have effects on Prolactin, IGF-1 and Oestradiol. It is a powerful antioxidant and has receptor sites on cells. It is also involved in circadian rhythms – it is a chronobiotic – and it is able to retard the development of certain tumours.

A common observation in many of the studies was the importance of pulse modulation. Pulse modulated fields seemed to have a stronger effect than continuous fields and, in some cases, it was a pulse of a certain frequency which triggered the reaction while an absence of pulse or a pulse of a different frequency lead to less significant effects or no effect at all. All too often conclusions of ‘safety’ with mobile phones and masts are, sadly, based on measurements with a continuous field.

Perhaps because of its wider remit, the ECLOG report came to dramatically different conclusions to that of the Stewart Report and called for an immediate downward regulation of the power flux density that should be allowed by the guidelines, by a factor of 1000.

UK guidelines are 3,300 and 10,000 uW/sq m but in Toronto the proposal is for just 6 and 10 respectively

To put that in context, the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) guidelines for the UK have gone up with the emergence of the new breed of 900 and 1800 Mhz phones to 3,300 and 10,000 uW/sq m respectively. As we said above, other countries find these levels too high. The US limits are 600 and 1,000 respectively, and whilst the limits in Canada are 600 and 1,000 respectively, in Toronto the proposal is for just 6 and 10 respectively. Russia, Poland, Italy, China refuse to permit levels above 10 uW/sq m whatever the frequency.

Dr. George Carlo headed the wireless industry research team in the USA in the early 90`s and was funded to the tune of $28 million by the mobile phone industry. His work was monitored by Harvard University for accuracy. However, his discoveries alarmed him, and the mobile phone industry distanced itself from his findings. He then wrote a book entitled ‘Cell phones - Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age’ and has founded a non-profit organisation, ‘The Safe Wireless Initiative’, to help inform the general public on the issue of mobile phones. I have corresponded with Carlo for this article and he even agreed to co-author it with me; sadly time prevented this. He believes there is a huge conspiracy afoot, with vested interests controlling the presentation of research conclusions and greatly influencing both a naïve media and even Government policy.

This is not an uncommon view amongst a growing body of scientists, researchers and Professors; h.e.s.e-uk, for example, believe that ‘mobile phones and wireless devices typify human invention running headlong and incautiously. We have introduced unnaturally coherent and structured electromagnetic fields at levels phenomenally above nature in a very short space of time. In doing so we have also created social dependency on wireless communication, at many levels. Control of this whole state of affairs is in economic terms, and science itself is beholden to economic and political interests’.

Confused? Well according to many critics, that’s exactly what the mobile phone companies want. This is an industry worth billions, and one that provides very large sums, also running into billions of pounds, to Governments in taxes and licences. The UK Government took a mere 22.5 billion pounds when issuing three 3G licences for the new breed of mobile phones

It may be of no surprise to some readers to learn that the Interphone studies are funded by the EU……. and the mobile Manufacturers Forum and the GSM Association. The UK studies were funded by the Department of Health ……..and five network operators. Indeed the majority of the research into phones/masts/mobile communications from Universities and specialist groups is funded by the mobile phone industry, which obviously has a very large say in the presentation of PR releases to the media.

Where is the World Health Organisation in all this? Almost nowhere. To date, the WHO has been largely disinterested in the whole topic of mobile phones and masts. However there is new management in place, so we will see if anything changes. The previous head of their Electromagnetic Field Department, Mike Repacholi, who was also the founding chairman of ICNIRP, recently left the World Health Organisation to work in the mobile phone industry.

So what do Doctors and Governments recommend?

Scientists and Governments all over the world are at odds over the issue of mobile phones. And it’s not just the Chinese that think our mobile phones are not safe. Below you will find a leaflet and poster produced by The Chamber of Doctors in Vienna for the general public. It is totally clear about the hazards of mobile phones.

So is Lloyd Morgan, the Director of the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States. He states that, “It is my contention, based solely on my reading of the scientific literature to date, that human exposure to cell phones poses a major health threat”. They even have a presentation entitled ‘Radiation causes brain tumors; from X-Rays to cordless phones’. Their recommendations are clear:

1. Use a headset with a cell phone. Keep them off, except when you wish to
   make a call or to find out who has called (a pager can be used for those that feel they must be reachable at all times).
2. Parents should deny use of cell phones to all children less than 18 years of age.

As we said at the start, the independent expert group for the UK government headed by Sir William Stewart said that, “There was evidence that radiation from mobile phones could potentially cause adverse health effects and therefore ‘a precautionary approach’ to their use should be adopted”.

The UK Government currently advises mobile phone users to keep their call times short. And children under the age of 16 should use mobile phones for essential calls only because their head and nervous systems are likely to still be developing.

The Cell Phone Programmer

In 1999 Sharesa Price thought she had a sinus infection. Again. But then she had a seizure and after a number of tests she was told she had a brain tumour. After her surgery, Price started looking for answers. She became convinced that exposure to radio-frequency radiation in her job had caused the tumour. What was her job? She programmed cell phones for new customers in a phone centre. In October 2005 she sued. She won. Price may be the first person to convince an American judge that her illness was caused by cell phones, but the award of just $30,000 is unlikely to worry that particular company. However it might worry the industry, if it opened the floodgates to other claims and was used as a precedent.

So why don’t phone companies make shields?

As we have covered in icon before, when your phone is switched on and making a call, only about 10 per cent of the power actually ‘powers the call’. The rest is induced into the nearest object: your hand, your head, whatever. VW ruled out in-car aerial systems for this very reason; the car became an ‘induction system’. Mobile phone companies definitely have been looking into developing safety shields, but the problem is that, unless they play that one very carefully, they could end up shooting themselves in the foot. As one expert said to me, “If you need a shield, were the phones not safe in the first place?”

Long-term dangers

there was a doubling of glioma risk where mobile phones had been used for more than 10 years

So, back to Professor Lawrie Challis and his concerns that the long term issue may be a problem in waiting: A recent 2006 German study by Joachim Schuz and colleagues at the University of Mainz and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology reported that there was a doubling of glioma risk where mobile phones had been used for more than 10 years. 749 brain tumour patients were compared with 1494 similar people who had not used mobile phones.

Powerwatch reported similarly in April 2006: ‘The latest study on brain tumours and phone use shows the biggest increase of any study so far, and is statistically significant in all areas. The new study on 905 malignant brain tumour cases shows a 1.7 to 5.9-fold increase in risk for long-term mobile phone and cordless phone users.

George Carlo highlighted for me the Swedish report in February 2006.
This study by Dr. Lennart Hardell and colleagues showing statistically significant increases in the risk of benign brain tumors, especially acoustic neuromas, following the use of mobile telephones. He points out that although acoustic neuromas are benign, they are considered to be a signal tumor for other types of malignant and benign brain lesions. These tumors occur in areas with the highest radio frequency radiation exposure during calls.

Of primary concern is the finding that ‘the greatest risk of developing these tumors was for persons who were first exposed before the age of twenty years’. Thus, this is the first published study directly suggesting higher risks of tumors among teenagers who use mobile telephones.

higher risks of tumors among teenagers

The study involved the largest number of benign tumours ever researched and showed a dose-response relationship where a greater number of hours of phone use results in ever increasing risks of developing tumors. The more you use, the more you abuse. There was also significantly greater long-term risk: The report concluded that there was a statistically significant increased risk associated with having used mobile phones for more than 15 years, a finding ‘consistent with other studies showing that risks dramatically increase after six and ten years of use’.

Direct or indirect action?

And then I return doggedly to the question of which trees should we be barking up. Of course this is one of the biggest problems: Does the induced radiation directly cause cancer, or indirectly affect some other health factor in the body? Or both?

In the month of October 2005, the date of the first Interphone study above, Microwave News in the USA reported on new Chinese research that showed that even relatively low-powered RF radiation could lead to DNA breaks. The levels involved were far below the safe – non-burning – guidelines of ICNIRP.

In 2005 we covered other research in icon’s Cancer Watch showing that mobile phones carried on the body could reduce the immune response, and even a male’s sperm count!

a negative effect on melatonin levels

Anyone who read our piece on EMF’s and melatonin disturbance will be aware that some frequencies of EMF’s seem to have a negative effect on melatonin levels. And as we said above, melatonin plays a significant role in your general health, the strength of your immune system and the fight against cancers all over the body.

Melatonin also has a significant effect with cancer drugs, not merely reducing side effects but actually making some drugs more effective, as we have reported previously in icon. If you are a breast cancer survivor and taking Tamoxifen you might like to know of German research that reported recently on how a 12 mG low frequency magnetic field neutralised the ability of Tamoxifen to inhibit the proliferation of breast cancer cells. My expert friends say that 12mG is quite a powerful force yet the low frequency magnetic pulses from a mobile phone held to your head exposes your brain to levels well in excess of 12mG. This was the seventh group to find similar effects, at a variety of power levels.

2005 and 2006 Brazilian studies 4,5 on absorption of mobile phone frequencies into skulls have shown that 11 year old children absorb up to 80 per cent more radiation than their parents – and their cells are dividing faster, their nervous systems and brains not finalised, their hormone systems in a transient state, etc.

And therein lies another issue. The level of radiation of the phone may well be considerably greater than the SAR. What’s this? The Specific Absorption Rate is a measure of how much radiation from a particular model of phone actually enters the body and is worked out using a ‘phantom head’. But this assumes all bodies are equal, and they are not. Thinner skulls and smaller skulls, for example, plus a number of factors relating to tissue and bone differences can result in hot spots, something that rarely features in ‘official’ calculations.

Adopt a Precautionary Principle

By now I hope you are clear that this is simply not an issue of ‘do phones cause more brain tumours or not?’

At CANCERactive, as you may well know, we do not talk about “a cause of cancer” because we think it is rare that any one individual factor ever ‘causes’ cancer and this approach is rather naive. Rather there are a number of possible contributory factors, which may increase an individual’s risk. But, where there is doubt, and where there is quality research from expert scientists expressing concerns, we believe it is idiocy to wait and wait until something is 100 per cent proven or the mechanism fully understood. Frankly it may never happen. Although unique in the UK, we adopt a sensible, people-focused, precautionary principle in line with major charities and health bodies in other countries. And that is our stance in this area.

we certainly do not have an “all clear” on mobile phones

What is quite clear is that we certainly do not have an “all clear” on mobile phones, as the media reported extensively in 2006, and we do have sympathy for the critics who call for health warning labels on mobile phones, especially given the increasing teenage use in the UK.

You should consider not carrying a phone that is turned on. Perhaps you should only turn it on twice per day to pick up messages. You might simply use the text facility. You should avoid having it next to your head while the connection is being made. You might choose to use a ‘phone with a built in loudspeaker – there is some evidence that you can reduce your personal exposure by not having the phone anywhere near your head when the connection is being made, then pushing the loudspeaker facility as soon as it is connected – exposure levels reduce geometrically; i.e. a doubling of the distance reduces absorption fourfold. There is also some evidence that ‘headsets/bluetooth’ etc reduce personal exposure.

Of course, you can always choose not to use a mobile phone. But you have little say in the mast that is being put up near your child’s school or even next to your home in the UK. Local councils in the UK, however, cannot use mere ‘health-reasons’ as a criterion for turning a mast location down – but that’s a whole different bag of worms.

As an ex-marketing man and CEO, I can’t help but feel that mobile phone companies are storing up problems for themselves. When the big lawsuits happened against the tobacco industry in the USA, it wasn’t because smoking caused cancer, it was because there had been research indicating smoking might cause increased risk and the tobacco boys knew about it yet failed to adequately warn people. Surely it would be totally appropriate and highly responsible if the mobile phone companies took a precautionary stance themselves, for example adding an on-pack warning voluntarily? Something along the lines of ‘mobile phones may possibly cause health problems, depending upon usage’. They might even add ‘May be unsuitable for prolonged usage by children under 18’. It would be honest and, handled correctly in the media, give them some stature as responsible, public-caring, service providers. Sadly, I doubt it will happen. One of the latest mobile phone usage campaigns in the USA actually targets 8-11 year-olds.

So, the confusion continues. The full research detail is all there for anyone to read, even if Abstracts are often misleading and simply trotted out by a gullible press. But, with a Government rooted in inaction, sadly the final decision is down to you.

Mobile phones and cancer? It’s your call.

Cancer

Readers may have seen The Times on 20th January 2007, under the heading of ‘Could these be the cigarettes of the 21st century?’ It’s a thought we have used ourselves in icon previously. BBC Breakfast news also picked up on it. While several studies in the past 12 months have seemed to provide an all clear for mobile phones when used in the short to medium term, there is no such evidence for their ‘safety’ with longer-term usage. And this has the man who heads the UK Government’s mobile safety research worried. In the article, Professor Lawrie Challis is clear, ‘You can look at almost any cancer where you know what caused it and you find absolutely nothing for ten years’.

At the moment there is a massive new Interphone Study taking place across Europe with many countries participating. Challis already alludes to ‘hints’ of concerns. And well he might.

A couple of the participating countries have even broken ranks on their findings and started to publish. In the recent issue of the International Journal of Cancer, epidemiologists from 5 European countries are reporting that there is a 40 per cent increase in gliomas amongst those people who have used a mobile for over ten years! 521 cases of glioma have been followed.

The Swedish team has found in their part of the Interphone study that there is a doubling of acoustic neuroma, and this is in line with their previous findings in 2000. Anssi Anvinen, the Professor in charge of the Finnish study is also finding much the same.

The Background

I must own up, right up front. I helped launch Mercury 1-2-1 mobile phones in the UK. I was chairman of the advertising and direct marketing agencies, and I sat on the company’s launch business committee.

We asked then, back in the early nineties, about the lawsuits filed in the USA over mobile phones and brain tumours to receive a curt, ‘‘Don’t ask’’ reply.

Also, my daughter died of a brain tumour in 2004, aged 26. It could well have been a complete coincidence that she seemed to live on her mobile phone. Certainly when I asked her surgeon what he thought might have caused her brain tumour, the first words he uttered were, ‘‘Well a lot of people think they are caused by mobile phones – but that’s a load of rubbish’’. He rather spoilt this emphatic answer when about five minutes later he said, ‘And anyway, when you get a tumour from a mobile phone it tends to be over one ear - Catherine’s tumour is not – it is in the left frontal lobe’.

I think I need to start off by saying a little about brain tumours: There are tumours, and there are tumours. Some people have benign brain tumours, like acoustic neuromas. These are not cancers, although they are indicative that extra-ordinary growth is taking place. Other people do have cancers, from grade 1 to 4. For example grade 3 astrocytomas, or highly aggressive grade 4 gliomas; like the one that took Catherine’s life.

In icon we have previously reported on a number of research studies, for example three by Hardell and one by Mild in Sweden comparing over a thousand people and looking at cordless, analogue and digital phones. In 2005 one of their studies concluded that using a digital mobile phone for over one hour a day increased the risks of a brain tumour by about 30 per cent. As Roger Coghill puts it so wonderfully, “Anyone who uses a mobile phone for more than 20 minutes, needs their head examined!”