Drivers who use hands-free cellular devices while driving may be doing themselves a favor in the long run. That’s because scientists still can’t say with certainty that placing a cellphone against the head is completely safe, especially for heavy users and people who began using the devices as children.
They point to lingering questions over potential health effects from the energy emitted by the phones, specifically the long-debated risk of developing brain cancer. “It’s fair to say that the data aren’t all in yet,” says Dr David L McCormick, a biologist and director of the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute in Chicago, who has studied the issue. “There are a small number of epidemiological studies that have suggested a possible increase in cancer risk. But comparable studies in other populations haven’t confirmed these findings.”
That’s not to say anyone should panic. Cellphones do produce a type of radiation, but it’s of the type called nonionising radio frequency — a form of energy located on the electromagnetic spectrum.
At the high end of the spectrum, ionising radiation, such as that emitted by X-ray machines, has well-known dangers. But the weak signals released by nonionising radio frequencies do not cause DNA damage, and there is no explanation for how such energy could cause cancer, McCormick says.
Most studies have not consistently demonstrated a link between cellphone use and cancer, including two studies conducted by the National Cancer Institute. Several other studies coordinated through the International Agency for Research on Cancer, called the Interphone studies, have also failed to show an association. Numerous studies on animals have also found no evidence that DNA is damaged by low levels of radio frequency, McCormick says.
But the sheer volume of use, as well as a few studies that found a potential link between brain cancer and cellphones, have kept the safety question looming.
The US National Academy of Sciences released a report in January calling for more research on cellphones and health risks. The authors concluded that many of the past studies were not conducted over a long-enough period of time to assess the risk of brain cancer, which typically develops slowly.
Nor have the studies examined the effects of cellphone use on children, whose nervous systems are still developing, or on whether the radio frequency emissions can cause other types of health problems, such as cancers elsewhere in the body or central nervous system damage that may affect learning or behaviour, says Dr Leeka Kheifets, a professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Los Angeles’ School of Public Health and a member of the NAS panel.
“At this point, it looks unlikely that cellphones are causing brain tumors, particularly from short-term exposures,” says Kheifets. “But we have not looked at all outcomes yet. The focus has been on brain tumors because exposure from cellphone use is mostly to the brain. And we are just beginning some studies on brain cancer in children.”
Kheifets and researchers in Denmark recently examined cellphone use in children and found “unexpected results”.
The researchers examined 13,159 Danish children born in 1997 and 1998 who are participants of a study called the Danish National Birth Cohort. The children’s mothers were surveyed during pregnancy and again when the children were 18 months old and 7 years old.
The study found that children who used cellphones, and whose mothers used cellphones during pregnancy were 80 per cent more likely to have behavioural problems such as emotional symptoms, inattention, hyperactivity and problems with peers compared with children who had no cellphone exposure as foetuses or in early childhood.
Children whose mothers used cellphones during pregnancy but who had no other cellphone exposure were 54 per cent more likely to have behavioural problems. The study, which will be published this month in Epidemiology, is the first to find a behavioural effect and so must be interpreted with caution. But Kheifets says: “In general, children are more susceptible to environmental hazards. We have little information on cellphones, and children are using cell phones at younger ages.”
Research on children and long-term studies should provide more clarification on any health risks, says Dr Siegal Sadetzki, an epidemiologist at Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, in Israel. Sadetzki’s research has found heavy cellphone users were at 50 per cent higher risk for a parotid tumor, which arises in the salivary gland near the ear and jaw, typically where cellphones are held. Parotid tumors can be cancerous or benign. The study was significant because it tracked heavy users for more than 10 years and found a relationship between the side of the head the phone was typically placed against and where the tumor formed.
She says she doesn’t think her study, which was published in February in the American Journal of Epidemiology, contradicts previous studies that showed no cause for alarm. The research was conducted in Israel, which has a population of heavy users who were among the first to adopt cellphone technology.
“Most negative results were seen for short-term users, below 10 years of use,” she said in an e-mail interview. “It is well known that the latency period for cancer development, and certainly for brain tumor development, is longer. The problem is, of course, that we are dealing with a relatively new technology.”
Besides the recent studies that have found some cause for concern, the controversy over cellphone safety was stoked recently when an Australian neurosurgeon published a paper on the Internet saying phone use “has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking”.
The doctor, Vini Khurana, analysed data from over 100 studies, concluding that most weren’t long enough to uncover a risk of brain cancer and that children haven’t been adequately studied. His Internet paper and recent appearance on CNN’s “Larry King Live” show rankled some health experts because of his alarming stance.
“The position he took was rather extreme,” says McCormick.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Basic Health Concerns
Concerns have been raised about the normal mobile phone, which has the antenna in the handset. In this case, the antenna is very close to the user's head during normal use of the telephone and there is concern about the level of microwave emissions to which the brain is being exposed.
Telephones that have the antenna mounted elsewhere are of little concern, since exposure levels decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the antenna.
Reports have appeared in the media linking the use of mobile telephones with, among other things, headaches, hot spots in the brain and brain cancer.
Media reports have claimed that up to 70 percent of the microwave emissions from hand-held mobile telephones may be absorbed in the user's head. This is not supported by the evidence, but nevertheless leads to speculation that hot spots may be created in the user's brain, thereby raising concerns that the telephones may be a health risk. Other reports have indicated that mobile telephone users suffer localized headaches when they use their telephone. At this stage, it is difficult to evaluate the evidence supporting these reports, since they have not been published.
The brain cancer reports originated in the USA where a number of lawsuits have been lodged against mobile telephone manufacturers and suppliers. These claims for damages allege that the microwave emissions from mobile telephones used by the claimants caused their (in some cases, fatal) brain cancers. Those few cases that have been tried have been dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
Concern about a possible increased risk of brain cancer in mobile phone users has continued. In response, a major project, INTERPHONE, has been organised. The INTERPHONE project is a multi-national series of epidemiological studies testing whether using mobile phones increases the risk of various cancers in the head and neck. The project comprises national studies from 13 different countries, which are coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organisation (WHO). Partial results from some of the studies have been published showing no overall association between mobile phone use and brain cancer.
Telephones that have the antenna mounted elsewhere are of little concern, since exposure levels decrease rapidly with increasing distance from the antenna.
Reports have appeared in the media linking the use of mobile telephones with, among other things, headaches, hot spots in the brain and brain cancer.
Media reports have claimed that up to 70 percent of the microwave emissions from hand-held mobile telephones may be absorbed in the user's head. This is not supported by the evidence, but nevertheless leads to speculation that hot spots may be created in the user's brain, thereby raising concerns that the telephones may be a health risk. Other reports have indicated that mobile telephone users suffer localized headaches when they use their telephone. At this stage, it is difficult to evaluate the evidence supporting these reports, since they have not been published.
The brain cancer reports originated in the USA where a number of lawsuits have been lodged against mobile telephone manufacturers and suppliers. These claims for damages allege that the microwave emissions from mobile telephones used by the claimants caused their (in some cases, fatal) brain cancers. Those few cases that have been tried have been dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.
Concern about a possible increased risk of brain cancer in mobile phone users has continued. In response, a major project, INTERPHONE, has been organised. The INTERPHONE project is a multi-national series of epidemiological studies testing whether using mobile phones increases the risk of various cancers in the head and neck. The project comprises national studies from 13 different countries, which are coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an agency of the World Health Organisation (WHO). Partial results from some of the studies have been published showing no overall association between mobile phone use and brain cancer.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
RSA launches mobile phone appeal
People who use a mobile phone while driving are four times more likely to have a crash, putting themselves and other road-users at an increased risk of death or serious injury, according to the Road Safety Authority (RSA). The ‘Mobile Phones and Driving’ awareness campaign is focusing on the dangers of driving while using a mobile phone.
“Research tells us that you are four times more likely to have a crash if you use a hand-held or hands-free mobile phone when you are driving. Using a mobile phone while driving distracts the driver, impairs their control of the vehicle and reduces their awareness of what is happening around them.”
Penalty points for holding a mobile phone while driving a vehicle came into force on 1st September 2006. As of 30th April 2008, there have been 35,253 offences for holding a mobile phone while driving, the third highest offence behind speeding and driving without a safety belt. Any person found holding a mobile phone faces up to four penalty points and a fine of €2,000 if convicted.
“We understand that many people need to use their mobile phone as part of their daily lives but it’s a scientific fact that drivers who use a mobile phone while driving have higher accident rates than those who do not. Our message is simple - Switch off before you drive off - If you need to make a phone call or check messages, pull in and park in a safe place. No phone call is worth putting your life or the lives of others at risk.”
The RSA has produced an information leaflet called ‘Mobile Phones and Driving’ which can be downloaded from www.rsa.ie. In addition to this, a new 30 second radio advert outlining the dangers of driving while using a mobile phone is being run on all national and local radio stations. The leaflet provides the following advice for drivers:
1.Switch off before you drive off. Turn off your mobile phone or put it on the ‘silent’ or ‘meeting’ option setting before starting your journey.
2.Use the voicemail on your mobile phone so people can leave messages for you while you’re travelling.
3.Stop regularly on your journey so you can check for messages and return any calls.
4.Make sure the place you stop is a legal and safe place to park. It is illegal to stop on a motorway unless it is an emergency.
5.If you call someone on their mobile phone while they are driving, be aware that they should be concentrating on their driving and not on your conversation. Tell them you will call them back or wait until they pull their car over.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Regulate hypertension
NEW YORK: In a finding that has implications for the treatment of hypertension, researchers have identified what they believe is the "master switch" that regulates blood pressure.
The "master switch" is a mechanism by which a protein complex in the kidney controls the rise or fall of blood pressure, according to a paper published in the latest issue of the 'Journal of Clinical Investigation' .
Researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University liken the switch to a rheostat that modulates the balance of salt and potassium in the kidney, thereby raising or lowering blood pressure.
When the switch malfunctions, high blood pressure or hypertension occurs, the researchers suggest. Hypertension affects millions around the world and is a major cause of heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure. The root cause is unknown in 95% cases.
If the study's conclusions are borne out by further research, they can lead to better targeted and more effective drugs for the disease. Dr David H Ellison, who led the research team, likens the switch to a rheostat that modulates the balance of salt and potassium in the kidney, thereby raising or lowering blood pressure.
Writing about his team's findings, Ellison said that hypertension occurs when the switch malfunctions, as it does when certain mutations in the WNK kinase protein complex are present.
"It is not widely understood by the general public that hypertension is most often a kidney disease. If we can figure out the ways the kidney adjusts salt excretion, we can devise methods to prevent hypertension, cure it or design better treatments for it. Our findings in this study get us a step closer, we think," he said.
The researchers say that they have found out how a hormone called aldosterone, produced in the adrenal gland, can have different effects on sodium and potassium balance at different times.
The "master switch" is a mechanism by which a protein complex in the kidney controls the rise or fall of blood pressure, according to a paper published in the latest issue of the 'Journal of Clinical Investigation' .
Researchers at the Oregon Health and Science University liken the switch to a rheostat that modulates the balance of salt and potassium in the kidney, thereby raising or lowering blood pressure.
When the switch malfunctions, high blood pressure or hypertension occurs, the researchers suggest. Hypertension affects millions around the world and is a major cause of heart attacks, strokes and kidney failure. The root cause is unknown in 95% cases.
If the study's conclusions are borne out by further research, they can lead to better targeted and more effective drugs for the disease. Dr David H Ellison, who led the research team, likens the switch to a rheostat that modulates the balance of salt and potassium in the kidney, thereby raising or lowering blood pressure.
Writing about his team's findings, Ellison said that hypertension occurs when the switch malfunctions, as it does when certain mutations in the WNK kinase protein complex are present.
"It is not widely understood by the general public that hypertension is most often a kidney disease. If we can figure out the ways the kidney adjusts salt excretion, we can devise methods to prevent hypertension, cure it or design better treatments for it. Our findings in this study get us a step closer, we think," he said.
The researchers say that they have found out how a hormone called aldosterone, produced in the adrenal gland, can have different effects on sodium and potassium balance at different times.
Is Mobile Affects Eye?
A group of researchers in Germany found that people who frequently use mobile phones are three times more likely to develop uveal melanoma- a cancer which grows in the iris and base of the retina of the eye. The scientists examined 118 patients already suffering from uveal melanoma, and investigated their mobile phone use history. They compared the results against a control group of 475 people.
Analysis of the results, which were published in January’s Epidemiology journal, found that those with cancer had a much higher rate of mobile phone use.
However Dr Andreas Stang, who led the team of researchers, does caution that the study needs to be confirmed—a point backed by Epidemiology. “Given the small size of their study, the relatively crude exposure assessment, the absence of attention to UVR exposure or other possible confounding variables, and limited support in the literature, a cautious interpretation of their results is indicated,” read an editorial accompanying the research.
Results from other studies that investigate mobile phones and cancer have been conflicting.
How could mobile phones cause melanoma in the eye? High levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation can create enough heat to cause biological damage. But mobile phones emit low levels of RF energy. Some scientists theorize that the eye may be vulnerable to RF radiation even at low levels because the eye’s limited blood supply prevents it from releasing heat easily.
Also, the radiation may not necessarily cause cancer, but may make people who are predisposed to cancer more susceptible.
Mobile Cancer Research
Research
Several research studies carried out in Europe and America have looked at large numbers of people using mobile phones. Most have found no link between brain tumours and mobile phones. A large UK study reported in January 2006 that they could find no link between mobile phone use and glioma. The study included information on over 2,500 people. They found no link between the amount of mobile phone use, length of time since first use, lifetime years of use or number of calls made. The study did not include any information on children using mobile phones. Over 2,500 people took part in this study. Only about 6 or 7 out of every 100 of them had used a mobile for more than 10 years.
A large Danish study has followed over 400,000 people - some of them for 21 years. In December 2006, these researchers published a paper that looked particularly at those who had been using a mobile phone for more than 10 years. They found no increased risk of brain tumour. A 2007 study found that high use of mobile phones may very slightly increase the risk of developing tumours of the salivary glands, but this needs to be confirmed by other research.
One thing to remember is that most of the research carried out has looked at older 'analogue' phones. Most of the phones available in the UK now (especially the newer phones) are digital. These give out less radio wave radiation than analogue phones, and so any potential risk is reduced.
There is very limited research about using a mobile phone with a hands-free set. Some research says holding the phone to your ear will expose you to less radiation than using a headset. Other research says the opposite. But, which ever is true, there is no proof that this low level radiation increases the risk of a brain tumour. There is more research underway in the UK to look into this further.
Several research studies carried out in Europe and America have looked at large numbers of people using mobile phones. Most have found no link between brain tumours and mobile phones. A large UK study reported in January 2006 that they could find no link between mobile phone use and glioma. The study included information on over 2,500 people. They found no link between the amount of mobile phone use, length of time since first use, lifetime years of use or number of calls made. The study did not include any information on children using mobile phones. Over 2,500 people took part in this study. Only about 6 or 7 out of every 100 of them had used a mobile for more than 10 years.
A large Danish study has followed over 400,000 people - some of them for 21 years. In December 2006, these researchers published a paper that looked particularly at those who had been using a mobile phone for more than 10 years. They found no increased risk of brain tumour. A 2007 study found that high use of mobile phones may very slightly increase the risk of developing tumours of the salivary glands, but this needs to be confirmed by other research.
One thing to remember is that most of the research carried out has looked at older 'analogue' phones. Most of the phones available in the UK now (especially the newer phones) are digital. These give out less radio wave radiation than analogue phones, and so any potential risk is reduced.
There is very limited research about using a mobile phone with a hands-free set. Some research says holding the phone to your ear will expose you to less radiation than using a headset. Other research says the opposite. But, which ever is true, there is no proof that this low level radiation increases the risk of a brain tumour. There is more research underway in the UK to look into this further.
Mobile cancer care for Wales
Welsh cancer charity Tenovus is today unveiling a new strategic direction delivering cancer treatment, care and support to people in their own communities.
The physical, emotional and financial costs of travelling to treatment centres are great for many cancer patients. Therefore, in an innovative move, the charity will be delivering chemotherapy to cancer patients in their communities through specially-adapted mobile units.
They will also provide comprehensive care and support to both patients and their families through counsellors, welfare and social support workers and access to cancer information.
The units will also focus on the prevention and early detection of cancer through the engagement of communities in health promotion initiatives and providing access to cancer screening programmes such as genetic testing.
This will be the first time that such a holistic approach to cancer care and treatment has ever been delivered this way in the UK.
The mobile units will be complemented by a network of local support centres, providing services such as patient and family counselling, screening trials, research projects, health education and cancer prevention messages, as well as access to welfare rights advisors in areas where this support is not currently available.
The new direction will see the first local support centre and mobile unit in operation by the end of 2008.
Claudia McVie, chief executive of Tenovus said, “Forty six people a day in Wales are told they have cancer, and this figure will have doubled by 2020. The combination of more people being diagnosed with cancer and increasing survival rates mean that a growing number of people are in need of our help.
“Reports show that each cancer patient will visit hospital an average of 53 times, making the costs of travelling and the added strain this puts on those and their families who are affected by cancer, considerable. Our research highlighted the problems of cancer in areas of social deprivation where cancer incidence is higher and outcomes worse.
“Therefore, we feel our new direction is truly groundbreaking work which will help meet the needs of today’s cancer patients and to address the inequities our research showed cancer patients across Wales.
“By taking treatments out of the hospital setting and making sure people can access the lifesaving treatments they need in their local area, we are freeing up their time and money, giving them the reassurance of being treated locally and also freeing up valuable space in hospitals for the NHS.
“The decision to make such a radical overhaul to the direction of Tenovus is one that has been taken after a great deal of research to ensure we are delivering the services that meet the needs of today’s cancer patients. By taking this new direction we can really help make a difference to cancer treatment and survival rates in Wales.”
Tenovus will also maintain its commitment to its current programme of research, spending over £4.2million until 2012. The charity will be launching a new programme of PhD studentships in partnership with universities, as well as encourage promising graduates from psychology, social science, nursing and physiotherapy courses to apply for these grants.
Lisa Miller, Director of operations at Velindre Cancer Centre, said, “We are delighted at Velindre Cancer Centre to be working with Tenovus on their new direction.
“The ability to provide chemotherapy closer to patient’s homes is something which has been a main strategic driver for many years with the development of outreach chemotherapy services at other hospitals around south east Wales.
The physical, emotional and financial costs of travelling to treatment centres are great for many cancer patients. Therefore, in an innovative move, the charity will be delivering chemotherapy to cancer patients in their communities through specially-adapted mobile units.
They will also provide comprehensive care and support to both patients and their families through counsellors, welfare and social support workers and access to cancer information.
The units will also focus on the prevention and early detection of cancer through the engagement of communities in health promotion initiatives and providing access to cancer screening programmes such as genetic testing.
This will be the first time that such a holistic approach to cancer care and treatment has ever been delivered this way in the UK.
The mobile units will be complemented by a network of local support centres, providing services such as patient and family counselling, screening trials, research projects, health education and cancer prevention messages, as well as access to welfare rights advisors in areas where this support is not currently available.
The new direction will see the first local support centre and mobile unit in operation by the end of 2008.
Claudia McVie, chief executive of Tenovus said, “Forty six people a day in Wales are told they have cancer, and this figure will have doubled by 2020. The combination of more people being diagnosed with cancer and increasing survival rates mean that a growing number of people are in need of our help.
“Reports show that each cancer patient will visit hospital an average of 53 times, making the costs of travelling and the added strain this puts on those and their families who are affected by cancer, considerable. Our research highlighted the problems of cancer in areas of social deprivation where cancer incidence is higher and outcomes worse.
“Therefore, we feel our new direction is truly groundbreaking work which will help meet the needs of today’s cancer patients and to address the inequities our research showed cancer patients across Wales.
“By taking treatments out of the hospital setting and making sure people can access the lifesaving treatments they need in their local area, we are freeing up their time and money, giving them the reassurance of being treated locally and also freeing up valuable space in hospitals for the NHS.
“The decision to make such a radical overhaul to the direction of Tenovus is one that has been taken after a great deal of research to ensure we are delivering the services that meet the needs of today’s cancer patients. By taking this new direction we can really help make a difference to cancer treatment and survival rates in Wales.”
Tenovus will also maintain its commitment to its current programme of research, spending over £4.2million until 2012. The charity will be launching a new programme of PhD studentships in partnership with universities, as well as encourage promising graduates from psychology, social science, nursing and physiotherapy courses to apply for these grants.
Lisa Miller, Director of operations at Velindre Cancer Centre, said, “We are delighted at Velindre Cancer Centre to be working with Tenovus on their new direction.
“The ability to provide chemotherapy closer to patient’s homes is something which has been a main strategic driver for many years with the development of outreach chemotherapy services at other hospitals around south east Wales.
Mobile Cancer Detection Unit in India
The real tragedy about cancer is that it begins with very minor symptoms or none at all. Therefore the best way to guard against cancer is to have a regular yearly cancer check-up examination. Even though the very word "Cancer" sends shiver down the spine of the people, nevertheless they are generally found to be reluctant to go in for a regular periodic cancer check up on their own due to various factors.
In order to create cancer awareness and to encourage more and more people to undergo regular cancer check-ups, the Society is operating a Mobile Cancer Detection Centre to provide cancer check-up facilities to people at a nominal cost without losing any working day, at the worksite, in factories, workshops, offices, housing complexes etc. on request. This Mobile Clinic consisting of an X-ray mounted fully equipped motorised van which carries doctors (2 ENT Surgeons, 2 Gen. Surgeons and a Gynaecologist) and other para. Medical staff to the check up camp sites, can effectively carry out all the tests normally undertaken at a regular detection centre. Those who undergo cancer check-ups at these camps are given individual check-up reports and suspected cases are referred to cancer hospitals for further investigation/treatment.
The details of camps conducted by the M.C.D.C. Unit at Mumbai during the last 10 years are as follows :
Year
Total No. of camps (Days)
No. of Persons examined
No. of suspected cases detected
Male Female Total Male Female Total
1989-90 79 4144 3261 7405 62 107 169
1990-91 52 2658 1800 4458 40 25 65
1991-92 120 9072 2095 11167 73 22 95
1992-93 65 3431 2128 5559 45 23 68
1993-94 68 3487 1905 5392 86 20 106
1994-95 73 4699 2064 6763 93 22 115
1995-96 68 4488 1895 6383 88 29 117
1996-97 67 2818 3179 5997 52 45 97
1997-98 70 4078 1867 5945 76 17 93
1998-99 72 3820 2569 6389 91 35 126
Since its inception in May, 1982 upto the end of March 1999, the MCDC Unit has examined 1,00,322 persons (68,878 Males + 31,444 Females) out of which 1761 suspected cases (1249 Males + 512 Females) were detected and referred to Cancer hospitals for further investigation/treatment. Similar Mobile Cancer Detection Units are functioning successfully at the Society's branches at Delhi and Calcutta also.
For more details contact:
INDIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Lady Ratan Tata Medical & Research Centre,
M. Karve Road, Cooperage, Bombay 400021.
Tel: 91-22-2202 9941 / 2202 9942 Fax: 91-22-2287 2745
In order to create cancer awareness and to encourage more and more people to undergo regular cancer check-ups, the Society is operating a Mobile Cancer Detection Centre to provide cancer check-up facilities to people at a nominal cost without losing any working day, at the worksite, in factories, workshops, offices, housing complexes etc. on request. This Mobile Clinic consisting of an X-ray mounted fully equipped motorised van which carries doctors (2 ENT Surgeons, 2 Gen. Surgeons and a Gynaecologist) and other para. Medical staff to the check up camp sites, can effectively carry out all the tests normally undertaken at a regular detection centre. Those who undergo cancer check-ups at these camps are given individual check-up reports and suspected cases are referred to cancer hospitals for further investigation/treatment.
The details of camps conducted by the M.C.D.C. Unit at Mumbai during the last 10 years are as follows :
Year
Total No. of camps (Days)
No. of Persons examined
No. of suspected cases detected
Male Female Total Male Female Total
1989-90 79 4144 3261 7405 62 107 169
1990-91 52 2658 1800 4458 40 25 65
1991-92 120 9072 2095 11167 73 22 95
1992-93 65 3431 2128 5559 45 23 68
1993-94 68 3487 1905 5392 86 20 106
1994-95 73 4699 2064 6763 93 22 115
1995-96 68 4488 1895 6383 88 29 117
1996-97 67 2818 3179 5997 52 45 97
1997-98 70 4078 1867 5945 76 17 93
1998-99 72 3820 2569 6389 91 35 126
Since its inception in May, 1982 upto the end of March 1999, the MCDC Unit has examined 1,00,322 persons (68,878 Males + 31,444 Females) out of which 1761 suspected cases (1249 Males + 512 Females) were detected and referred to Cancer hospitals for further investigation/treatment. Similar Mobile Cancer Detection Units are functioning successfully at the Society's branches at Delhi and Calcutta also.
For more details contact:
INDIAN CANCER SOCIETY
Lady Ratan Tata Medical & Research Centre,
M. Karve Road, Cooperage, Bombay 400021.
Tel: 91-22-2202 9941 / 2202 9942 Fax: 91-22-2287 2745
Monday, August 11, 2008
Depression anorexia,child birth affects life
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Childbirth and the psychiatric disorders anorexia and depression can affect a woman's sex life, but in different ways, a small study suggests.
Research has shown that women with mental health conditions, including major depression and eating disorders, tend to report more problems with their sex life than other women do. The same has been found in studies of new mothers.
But the nature of this sexual dysfunction has not been clear.
In the new study, researchers found that women with either anorexia or depression typically had sex more frequently than new mothers did. They were, however, more likely to report having "problems" during sex, according to findings published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders.
This suggests that anorexia and depression have similar effects on a woman's sex life, while childbirth has a different sort of impact, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Frances A. Carter of the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Otago University in New Zealand.
The study results are based on questionnaire responses from 76 women who had taken part in three previous, separate studies and included 10 women with anorexia; 24 women with major depression; and 42 women who'd given birth within the past two months. All of the women were married or in stable relationships.
Overall, Carter's team found that 80 percent and 79 percent of women with anorexia or depression, respectively, said they'd had sex in the past two weeks, compared with only half of the new mothers.
On the other hand, none of the women in the postnatal group said they had any problems during sex, while roughly one third of those with anorexia or depression said they did.
The fact that new mothers had sex less often is not surprising, according to Carter and his colleagues. However, the reported lack of any sexual difficulties is "more optimistic" than the results obtained from other studies, which "suggested that sexual difficulties were the norm."
Research has shown that women with mental health conditions, including major depression and eating disorders, tend to report more problems with their sex life than other women do. The same has been found in studies of new mothers.
But the nature of this sexual dysfunction has not been clear.
In the new study, researchers found that women with either anorexia or depression typically had sex more frequently than new mothers did. They were, however, more likely to report having "problems" during sex, according to findings published in the International Journal of Eating Disorders.
This suggests that anorexia and depression have similar effects on a woman's sex life, while childbirth has a different sort of impact, according to the researchers, led by Dr. Frances A. Carter of the Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Otago University in New Zealand.
The study results are based on questionnaire responses from 76 women who had taken part in three previous, separate studies and included 10 women with anorexia; 24 women with major depression; and 42 women who'd given birth within the past two months. All of the women were married or in stable relationships.
Overall, Carter's team found that 80 percent and 79 percent of women with anorexia or depression, respectively, said they'd had sex in the past two weeks, compared with only half of the new mothers.
On the other hand, none of the women in the postnatal group said they had any problems during sex, while roughly one third of those with anorexia or depression said they did.
The fact that new mothers had sex less often is not surprising, according to Carter and his colleagues. However, the reported lack of any sexual difficulties is "more optimistic" than the results obtained from other studies, which "suggested that sexual difficulties were the norm."
16 per cent of Indians suffer from sexual dysfunction
CHENNAI: Roughly 16 per cent of the Indian population suffers from various forms of sexual dysfunctions, according to a recent survey.
The survey, conducted by the Indian Institute of Sexual Medicine (IISM), Chennai states that men suffer from dysfunctions like premature ejaculation, ejaculatory dysfunction and impotence.
Change in life style is the main reason for this, IISM Director Dr T Kamaraj said. Working on computers and business outsourcing firms had changed the life style, which affected the daily activities of the people, he said adding that this had led to more stress, affecting sexual life.
"The attitude towards sex has undergone a change, which has resulted in value degradation and even sexual frustration," he said.
Spreading fast food culture had led to obesity, which in turn affects sexual life of a person, he said, adding blood pressure, diabetes and obesity had also affected the youth.
Youth had a lot of myth and misconceptions on sex compounded with age old superstitions, which also played a major role on the sexual life of individuals, Kamaraj said.
The two day third international conference on sexology, which begins here on Saturday would address these issues at length, he added.
The survey, conducted by the Indian Institute of Sexual Medicine (IISM), Chennai states that men suffer from dysfunctions like premature ejaculation, ejaculatory dysfunction and impotence.
Change in life style is the main reason for this, IISM Director Dr T Kamaraj said. Working on computers and business outsourcing firms had changed the life style, which affected the daily activities of the people, he said adding that this had led to more stress, affecting sexual life.
"The attitude towards sex has undergone a change, which has resulted in value degradation and even sexual frustration," he said.
Spreading fast food culture had led to obesity, which in turn affects sexual life of a person, he said, adding blood pressure, diabetes and obesity had also affected the youth.
Youth had a lot of myth and misconceptions on sex compounded with age old superstitions, which also played a major role on the sexual life of individuals, Kamaraj said.
The two day third international conference on sexology, which begins here on Saturday would address these issues at length, he added.
Impact to Health
Health threat
While there is no specific evidence that mobile telephones pose a health threat to young users, researchers worry that there is still only scanty scientific information about the long-term impact of radio frequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile telephones on the developing brains and tissues of children.
In France the health minister, Roselyne Bachelot, has taken such concerns public, issuing an alert in January urging parents to limit use, reducing children’s telephone calls to no more than six minutes. Her announcement followed a similar warning by the Health and Radio Frequencies Foundation, a government-backed research group created two years ago to study the impact of radio frequency fields on humans.
“I believe in the principle of precaution,” Bachelot said in an interview. “If there is a risk, then children with developing nervous systems would be affected. I’ve alerted parents about the use of mobile telephones because it’s absurd for young children to have them.”
Research initiative
The French foundation is moving now to organise a broad international research project to study the potential risks for children. More studies are developing in other countries. The Mobile Telecommunication and Health Research Programme in Britain, which is financed by the state and local telecommunications industry, is in the early stage of organising a children’s study.
Another project, called Cefalo, is under way in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland to explore whether mobile telephone use increases the risk of brain tumours for children.
In January, the National Research Council in the United States also delivered a report — commissioned by the Food and Drug Administration — that reviewed existing scientific studies around the world and urged further research on the impact of mobile phone use on children and pregnant women.
“This clearly is a population that is going to grow up with a great deal of larger exposure than anybody else because the kids use the phones all the time,” said Frank Barnes, a professor of engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder who led the study. “And you’ve got growing bodies and brains, so if there is going to be an impact, that’s likely to be a more sensitive population than others.”
Growing market
Every year, the average age of novice mobile phone users is dropping, hitting 10 years old last year, according to Scott Ellison, an IDC analyst who forecasts that the 9-and-under market will increase to nine 9 million users in the United States and $1.6 billion in revenue by 2010.
Telephone use is also getting more precocious in Europe, according to a Eurobarometer survey of almost 1,000 children in 29 countries, most of whom had telephones after age 9.
The youth market is particularly enticing because these customers treat their mobile telephones more like a companion than a device — or like a “doudou” or stuffed animal — as AFOM, the French mobile telephone operators trade association, described it in a report on customers’ habits in a summer survey. In general, young customers chatter more on the phone, spending more on the latest games, ring tones and wallpapers.
Government authorities around the world have taken different approaches to the health issue. The Health Council of the Netherlands concluded in 2002 that there was no special risk for children, while health authorities in Britain, Russia and France all urge precautions.
The current government view in the United States is that a review of scientific literature “indicates that there is no real suggestion that children are inherently more sensitive to radio frequency radiation,” according to an FDA spokeswoman, Karen Riley.
“But since children are still developing and have more life span left, it is not unreasonable to continue to investigate this issue,” she added.
When it comes to children, mobile operators and manufacturers have avoided the health issue and focused more on protecting them from pornographic material or bullying messages and photographs on mobile telephones.
Manufacturers initiatives
In December, Telefonica, which helped develop the MO1 and a more sophisticated version for young children, the Win1, announced a code of conduct for responsible use of mobile telephones by young customers. Orange and Vodafone also signed on, but the accord focused on controlling the visits of minors to sexual content.
French mobile operators — which are facing pressure on the issue — have been meeting with parent groups through their trade association, AFOM, which has pledged not to market telephones for young children.
The mobile telephone industry considers telephones safe for children, according to Michael Milligan, secretary-general of the Brussels-based Mobile Manufacturers Forum, which represents all the big makers.
“It’s really up to parents whether they let children use mobile phones. Most parents recognise the enormous safety aspects of mobile phones,” said Milligan.
Nokia, the world’s leading manufacturer of hand-held telephones, said that it shared that view. “There has been a lot of work done on the effects of mobile exposure over a significant period of time, and there is no scientific consensus that there should be any reason for the impact to be any different on children,” said Mark Durrant, a spokesman for Nokia at its headquarters in Finland.
Impact on health
In Europe, scientists are close to wrapping up a broad seven-year study of adults in 13 countries — including Japan, Israel and much of Western Europe — that ultimately could give more impetus and financing to research on children. In what is called the Interphone study, scientists have evaluated more than 6,000 people with different forms of cancer and brain tumours to determine whether there is a link to mobile telephone use.
The early results from some individual nations in the Interphone study have already prompted a few participating scientists to speak of a need for caution.
“Simple measures should be taken to lower the exposure,” said Siegal Sadetzki, who heads the Israeli group in the Interphone study and advocates hands-free devices and limitations on use among younger children. “I’m not against cell phones at all. This is a technique that is here to say. But we have to learn how to use this technique with reason.”
The Israeli study, published last May in The American Journal of Epidemiology, detected no increased risk of cancer among a smaller group of patients with tumours of the salivary glands, which are near the ear. But when the group was divided between moderate and heavy telephone users, the risk of cancer increased for people who spoke for prolonged periods and used the phone on the same side of the head.
Lead researchers caution, though, that they need to look at the total results from their wider pool of people.
While there is no specific evidence that mobile telephones pose a health threat to young users, researchers worry that there is still only scanty scientific information about the long-term impact of radio frequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile telephones on the developing brains and tissues of children.
In France the health minister, Roselyne Bachelot, has taken such concerns public, issuing an alert in January urging parents to limit use, reducing children’s telephone calls to no more than six minutes. Her announcement followed a similar warning by the Health and Radio Frequencies Foundation, a government-backed research group created two years ago to study the impact of radio frequency fields on humans.
“I believe in the principle of precaution,” Bachelot said in an interview. “If there is a risk, then children with developing nervous systems would be affected. I’ve alerted parents about the use of mobile telephones because it’s absurd for young children to have them.”
Research initiative
The French foundation is moving now to organise a broad international research project to study the potential risks for children. More studies are developing in other countries. The Mobile Telecommunication and Health Research Programme in Britain, which is financed by the state and local telecommunications industry, is in the early stage of organising a children’s study.
Another project, called Cefalo, is under way in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland to explore whether mobile telephone use increases the risk of brain tumours for children.
In January, the National Research Council in the United States also delivered a report — commissioned by the Food and Drug Administration — that reviewed existing scientific studies around the world and urged further research on the impact of mobile phone use on children and pregnant women.
“This clearly is a population that is going to grow up with a great deal of larger exposure than anybody else because the kids use the phones all the time,” said Frank Barnes, a professor of engineering at the University of Colorado in Boulder who led the study. “And you’ve got growing bodies and brains, so if there is going to be an impact, that’s likely to be a more sensitive population than others.”
Growing market
Every year, the average age of novice mobile phone users is dropping, hitting 10 years old last year, according to Scott Ellison, an IDC analyst who forecasts that the 9-and-under market will increase to nine 9 million users in the United States and $1.6 billion in revenue by 2010.
Telephone use is also getting more precocious in Europe, according to a Eurobarometer survey of almost 1,000 children in 29 countries, most of whom had telephones after age 9.
The youth market is particularly enticing because these customers treat their mobile telephones more like a companion than a device — or like a “doudou” or stuffed animal — as AFOM, the French mobile telephone operators trade association, described it in a report on customers’ habits in a summer survey. In general, young customers chatter more on the phone, spending more on the latest games, ring tones and wallpapers.
Government authorities around the world have taken different approaches to the health issue. The Health Council of the Netherlands concluded in 2002 that there was no special risk for children, while health authorities in Britain, Russia and France all urge precautions.
The current government view in the United States is that a review of scientific literature “indicates that there is no real suggestion that children are inherently more sensitive to radio frequency radiation,” according to an FDA spokeswoman, Karen Riley.
“But since children are still developing and have more life span left, it is not unreasonable to continue to investigate this issue,” she added.
When it comes to children, mobile operators and manufacturers have avoided the health issue and focused more on protecting them from pornographic material or bullying messages and photographs on mobile telephones.
Manufacturers initiatives
In December, Telefonica, which helped develop the MO1 and a more sophisticated version for young children, the Win1, announced a code of conduct for responsible use of mobile telephones by young customers. Orange and Vodafone also signed on, but the accord focused on controlling the visits of minors to sexual content.
French mobile operators — which are facing pressure on the issue — have been meeting with parent groups through their trade association, AFOM, which has pledged not to market telephones for young children.
The mobile telephone industry considers telephones safe for children, according to Michael Milligan, secretary-general of the Brussels-based Mobile Manufacturers Forum, which represents all the big makers.
“It’s really up to parents whether they let children use mobile phones. Most parents recognise the enormous safety aspects of mobile phones,” said Milligan.
Nokia, the world’s leading manufacturer of hand-held telephones, said that it shared that view. “There has been a lot of work done on the effects of mobile exposure over a significant period of time, and there is no scientific consensus that there should be any reason for the impact to be any different on children,” said Mark Durrant, a spokesman for Nokia at its headquarters in Finland.
Impact on health
In Europe, scientists are close to wrapping up a broad seven-year study of adults in 13 countries — including Japan, Israel and much of Western Europe — that ultimately could give more impetus and financing to research on children. In what is called the Interphone study, scientists have evaluated more than 6,000 people with different forms of cancer and brain tumours to determine whether there is a link to mobile telephone use.
The early results from some individual nations in the Interphone study have already prompted a few participating scientists to speak of a need for caution.
“Simple measures should be taken to lower the exposure,” said Siegal Sadetzki, who heads the Israeli group in the Interphone study and advocates hands-free devices and limitations on use among younger children. “I’m not against cell phones at all. This is a technique that is here to say. But we have to learn how to use this technique with reason.”
The Israeli study, published last May in The American Journal of Epidemiology, detected no increased risk of cancer among a smaller group of patients with tumours of the salivary glands, which are near the ear. But when the group was divided between moderate and heavy telephone users, the risk of cancer increased for people who spoke for prolonged periods and used the phone on the same side of the head.
Lead researchers caution, though, that they need to look at the total results from their wider pool of people.
Do Cell Phones Cause Cancer?
Origin: Some scientific studies have suggested a link between cell phones and brain cancer. Lawsuits and news headlines have fueled concerns that cell phones cause cancer, particularly brain cancer, and 30% of Americans still believe there is a connection, according to the Discovery Health/Prevention/ACS telephone survey.
Reality: This represents a legitimate area of scientific controversy and should not be dismissed as a “myth.” A few studies suggested a link with certain rare types of brain tumors, but the consensus among well-designed population studies is that there is no consistent association between cell phone use and brain cancer. Studies of potential risk factors for rare cancers, such as brain cancer, are very difficult to conduct. Comparing past cell phone use retrospectively, between people already diagnosed with brain tumors and a group of healthy control subjects is very difficult and prone to statistical challenges and to inaccurate recollection by participants. Studies that collect information from healthy people about potential risk factors and then follow them for many years to see what diseases develop are generally more reliable. Although some studies suggest there may be a small risk of cancer, it’s difficult to know whether these results are reliable or are the result of statistical problems or biased recollection by participants. Although it is reassuring that the majority of published studies did not find any danger of cancer, there is not enough information available to say that this concern has been disproven.
In general, news reports are more likely to emphasize the minority of studies suggesting something is dangerous, and consumers could easily have missed the reports showing no danger from cell phones because they didn't receive front-page coverage like the original reports.
What has been proven is that using a cell phone while driving increases the risk of having a car accident. So, keeping your hands free and your eyes on the road is a more significant issue for people who use cell phones.
No Apparent Cancer Link for Other Electronic Devices
Considerable research has also found no clear association between any other electronic consumer products and cancer. Cell phones, microwave ovens and related appliances emit low-frequency radiation—the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that includes radio waves and radar. Ionizing radiation such as gamma rays and X-rays can increase cancer risk by causing changes to DNA in cells of the body. Low frequency, non-ionizing radiation does not cause these DNA changes.
For people who are still suspicious about any possible health effects from cell phones, the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) offers advice to people concerned about their risk. Experts from the CDRH explain practical ways to minimize exposure to radio frequency radiation while using a cell phone. Also, there's the option of using digital rather than analog telephones.
For more information, the ACS book, Cancer: What Causes It, What Doesn't provides an educated perspective on what cancer health hazards people may face in everyday life, and what's not worth worrying about.
Reality: This represents a legitimate area of scientific controversy and should not be dismissed as a “myth.” A few studies suggested a link with certain rare types of brain tumors, but the consensus among well-designed population studies is that there is no consistent association between cell phone use and brain cancer. Studies of potential risk factors for rare cancers, such as brain cancer, are very difficult to conduct. Comparing past cell phone use retrospectively, between people already diagnosed with brain tumors and a group of healthy control subjects is very difficult and prone to statistical challenges and to inaccurate recollection by participants. Studies that collect information from healthy people about potential risk factors and then follow them for many years to see what diseases develop are generally more reliable. Although some studies suggest there may be a small risk of cancer, it’s difficult to know whether these results are reliable or are the result of statistical problems or biased recollection by participants. Although it is reassuring that the majority of published studies did not find any danger of cancer, there is not enough information available to say that this concern has been disproven.
In general, news reports are more likely to emphasize the minority of studies suggesting something is dangerous, and consumers could easily have missed the reports showing no danger from cell phones because they didn't receive front-page coverage like the original reports.
What has been proven is that using a cell phone while driving increases the risk of having a car accident. So, keeping your hands free and your eyes on the road is a more significant issue for people who use cell phones.
No Apparent Cancer Link for Other Electronic Devices
Considerable research has also found no clear association between any other electronic consumer products and cancer. Cell phones, microwave ovens and related appliances emit low-frequency radiation—the part of the electromagnetic spectrum that includes radio waves and radar. Ionizing radiation such as gamma rays and X-rays can increase cancer risk by causing changes to DNA in cells of the body. Low frequency, non-ionizing radiation does not cause these DNA changes.
For people who are still suspicious about any possible health effects from cell phones, the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) offers advice to people concerned about their risk. Experts from the CDRH explain practical ways to minimize exposure to radio frequency radiation while using a cell phone. Also, there's the option of using digital rather than analog telephones.
For more information, the ACS book, Cancer: What Causes It, What Doesn't provides an educated perspective on what cancer health hazards people may face in everyday life, and what's not worth worrying about.
Mobile Phone Heavy Usage Facts
Heavy mobile phone use may increase the risk of cancer, a new study has found. People who use a mobile for several hours a day are 50 per cent more likely to develop a salivary gland tumour.
The new findings fly in the face of many other studies that have failed to find a link between mobile phone use and cancer. Researchers from Tel Aviv University, who carried out the latest study, believe this is because other researchers have tended to look for evidence of a link to brain tumours only, and haven’t looked at people who have used a mobile phone for a long period.
Research team leader Dr Siegal Sadetzki says Israel is an ideal market to use as a test because mobile phone usage in the country is heavier than almost anywhere else in the world, and researchers can more easily see any effects from cumulative use.
“Compared to other studies, the amount of exposure to radiofrequency radiation we saw here was much higher. If you like, you’re seeing what could happen elsewhere ‘speeded up’ in Israel,” he has told journalists.
The new findings fly in the face of many other studies that have failed to find a link between mobile phone use and cancer. Researchers from Tel Aviv University, who carried out the latest study, believe this is because other researchers have tended to look for evidence of a link to brain tumours only, and haven’t looked at people who have used a mobile phone for a long period.
Research team leader Dr Siegal Sadetzki says Israel is an ideal market to use as a test because mobile phone usage in the country is heavier than almost anywhere else in the world, and researchers can more easily see any effects from cumulative use.
“Compared to other studies, the amount of exposure to radiofrequency radiation we saw here was much higher. If you like, you’re seeing what could happen elsewhere ‘speeded up’ in Israel,” he has told journalists.
Oral sex can cause in Men
ATLANTA: The sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer in women is poised to become one of the leading causes of oral cancer in men, according to a new study. The HPV virus now causes as many cancers of the upper throat as tobacco and alcohol, probably due both to an increase in oral sex and the decline in smoking, researchers say.
The only available vaccine against HPV, made by Merck & Co Inc, is currently given only to girls and young women. But Merck plans this year to ask government permission to offer the shot to boys.
Experts say a primary reason for male vaccinations would be to prevent men from spreading the virus and help reduce the nearly 12,000 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in US women each year. But the new study should add to the argument that there may be a direct benefit for men, too. "We need to start having a discussion about those cancers other than cervical cancer that may be affected in a positive way by the vaccine," said study co-author Dr Maura Gillison of Johns Hopkins University.
The study was published on Friday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology .
Human papillomavirus, or HPV, is the leading cause of cervical cancer in women. It also can cause genital warts, penile and anal cancer - risks for males that generally don't get the same attention as cervical cancer.
Previous research by Gillison and others established HPV as a primary cause of the estimated 5,600 cancers that occur each year in the tonsils, lower tongue and upper throat. It's also been known that the virus' role in such cancers has been rising. The new study looked at more than 30 years of National Cancer Institute data on oral cancers. Researchers categorized about 46,000 cases, using a formula to divide them into those caused by HPV and those not connected to the virus. They concluded the incidence rates for HPV-related oral cancers rose steadily in men from 1973 to 2004, becoming about as common as those from tobacco and alcohol.
The only available vaccine against HPV, made by Merck & Co Inc, is currently given only to girls and young women. But Merck plans this year to ask government permission to offer the shot to boys.
Experts say a primary reason for male vaccinations would be to prevent men from spreading the virus and help reduce the nearly 12,000 cases of cervical cancer diagnosed in US women each year. But the new study should add to the argument that there may be a direct benefit for men, too. "We need to start having a discussion about those cancers other than cervical cancer that may be affected in a positive way by the vaccine," said study co-author Dr Maura Gillison of Johns Hopkins University.
The study was published on Friday in the Journal of Clinical Oncology .
Human papillomavirus, or HPV, is the leading cause of cervical cancer in women. It also can cause genital warts, penile and anal cancer - risks for males that generally don't get the same attention as cervical cancer.
Previous research by Gillison and others established HPV as a primary cause of the estimated 5,600 cancers that occur each year in the tonsils, lower tongue and upper throat. It's also been known that the virus' role in such cancers has been rising. The new study looked at more than 30 years of National Cancer Institute data on oral cancers. Researchers categorized about 46,000 cases, using a formula to divide them into those caused by HPV and those not connected to the virus. They concluded the incidence rates for HPV-related oral cancers rose steadily in men from 1973 to 2004, becoming about as common as those from tobacco and alcohol.
Cancer
Studies on cancer in relation to mobile telephony have focused on intracranial tumours because deposition of energy from RF fields from a mobile phone is mainly within a small area of the skull near the handset. When whole body exposure is considered, as in some occupational and environmental studies, also other forms of cancer have been investigated.
3.3.2.1. Epidemiology
What was already known on this subject?
At the time of the previous CSTEE opinion of 2001, most epidemiological studies on exposure to RF fields had examined exposures at the workplace. The overall evidence did not suggest consistent cancer excesses. With regard to mobile phones, only few studies were available at the time of the previous opinion and the short exposure period in these studies did not allow any firm conclusions. The few studies on residential exposure to RF fields from transmitters had serious methodological limitations.
What has been achieved since then?
In total, about 30 papers of original studies on mobile phone use and cancer were published in the last five years. Results are summarized in Table 2 for brain tumours and in Table 3 for acoustic neuroma. All but one study were case-control studies, mostly on brain tumours, some on salivary gland tumours or uveal melanoma. One was a large cohort study of all Danish mobile phone subscribers between 1982 and 1995 who were followed up for a variety of cancers; no increased risk for any cancer was observed but follow up time was short (Johansen et al. 2001). A recent update of the cohort study with an average follow up time of 8.5 years yielded 14,249 cancer cases observed in the cohort versus 15,001 expected cases based on cancer rates observed in the rest of the Danish adult population (Schüz et al. 2006b). The deficit was mainly attributable to smoking-related cancers, suggesting a healthy cohort effect. The overall relative risk estimates for brain tumours and leukaemia were close to one, however, only 28 brain tumour cases occurred in subscribers of a mobile phone of 10 years or more, whereas 42.5 cases were expected.
The Interphone study is a multinational case-control study coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It is a population-based study with prospective ascertainment of incident cases and face-to-face interviews for exposure assessment. With regard to brain tumours, results from the first four components of the Interphone study suggest no risk increase for meningioma or glioma. This is consistently so among subjects with less than 10 years of use. For regular mobile phone users of 10 years or more, no indications of risk increases were seen in three out of four components, namely in Sweden (Lönn et al. 2005), Denmark (Christensen et al. 2005) and the UK (Hepworth et al. 2006), but the German component does reveal a somewhat raised relative risk estimate for glioma (Schüz et al. 2006a). This increase, however, is based on small numbers and due to the wide confidence interval the result is not in contradiction with the other Interphone components.
In contrast, a Swedish group not participating in the Interphone-study, conducting several case-control studies using self-administered questionnaires for exposure assessment, has repeatedly observed increased relative risk estimates for brain tumours. In 2006, the group revisited their previously published studies and reported statistically significant risk increases for both analogue and digital mobile phones as well as cordless phones already after one year of use (Hardell et al. 2006). After ten years of use they observed about a doubling of the relative risk estimates, with the strongest increase for high grade glioma.
Acoustic neuromas, benign tumours that develop very slowly, arise from the Schwann cells, which enfold the vestibulocochlear nerve (VIII. cranial nerve). They are of particular interest because of their location. The Hardell-group from Sweden has in several studies reported raised relative risk estimates for acoustic neuroma, also with very short induction periods (Hardell et al. 2005b). Three of the Interphone components, Denmark, Sweden, and Japan, have reported their country specific acoustic neuroma results (Christensen et al. 2004, Lönn et al. 2004, Takebayashi et al. 2006). Lönn et al. (2004) reported a doubling of the relative risk estimate after ten years of regular mobile phone use compared to subjects who never used a mobile phone regularly. This association became stronger when the analysis was restricted to preferred phone use at the same side as the tumour. Christensen’s and Takebayashi’s results did not support this, but they were based on fewer long-term users. Five of thirteen countries of the Interphone study (including Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were pooled for a joint analysis to examine the association between mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma (Schoemaker et al. 2005). While no overall association was seen among all long-term users (see Table 3), the data suggest that there may be an increased risk when the preferred side of the head of use is considered in the analysis. For 10+ years of use of mobile phones, the relative risk for acoustic neuroma at the preferred side of use was 1.8 (95%-CI 1.1-3.1). Because of methodological inter-study differences it would have been of considerable interest to compare the results across the six studies, but small numbers in most of the centres preclude that analysis.
All those studies are facing limitations in their exposure assessment, which was either a list of subscribers from the operators or self-reported mobile phone use. While the first method is an objective measure, it has limitations because subscription predicts use of a mobile phone only to some extent. Recent validation studies in volunteers comparing current self-reported use with traffic records from network operators show a moderate agreement, but it cannot be excluded that agreement is worse with respect to past mobile phone use or among patients with brain tumours (Vrijheid et al. 2006). Especially patients with high stage glioma showed some memory performance problems in the Danish Interphone study (Christensen et al. 2005). What seems to be reassuring despite these shortcomings is, that once the amount of mobile phone use is estimated with some validity, this is a satisfactory proxy for RF field exposure from these devices, as was shown in studies recording output power of mobile phones during operation (Berg et al. 2005). Laterality (side) of use is not easy to obtain in a retrospective study, as early symptoms may affect the side of use. Although some results are now available for long- term users, their numbers are still small and the results of the whole Interphone dataset should be awaited before drawing conclusions.
No striking new results appeared for studies on occupational and residential RF fields exposures since the previous opinion. While some positive associations have been reported from occupational studies, the overall picture is far from clear (Ahlbom et al. 2004). Many studies lack individual exposure assessment and only job titles or branches were used as exposure proxies. Studies on exposure from transmitters are limited by crude exposure measures and small numbers of exposed subjects, and the ecological nature of most studies.
Discussion
Mobile phones in relation to health are now being studied with great effort and in comprehensive studies, particularly in the Interphone Study. The results of the Interphone Study will soon become available. It has to be doubted, however, that the results will be entirely conclusive, as the first results from published national components of this study already raise a number of questions with respect to the potential of bias. Another limitation is that also in the current studies, long-term mobile phone users have had hardly more than 10 years of regular use of mobile phones, which still may be a relatively short latency period, particularly for slowly growing benign tumours. Among those long-term users, most were initially users of analogue mobile phone and thus, the number of long-term users of the digital technology is even smaller. Prospective long term follow up studies overcome both the limitations of retrospective exposure assessment and the latency problem and are recommended as a powerful long-term surveillance system for a variety of potential endpoints, including cancer, to fill current gaps in knowledge.
3.3.2.1. Epidemiology
What was already known on this subject?
At the time of the previous CSTEE opinion of 2001, most epidemiological studies on exposure to RF fields had examined exposures at the workplace. The overall evidence did not suggest consistent cancer excesses. With regard to mobile phones, only few studies were available at the time of the previous opinion and the short exposure period in these studies did not allow any firm conclusions. The few studies on residential exposure to RF fields from transmitters had serious methodological limitations.
What has been achieved since then?
In total, about 30 papers of original studies on mobile phone use and cancer were published in the last five years. Results are summarized in Table 2 for brain tumours and in Table 3 for acoustic neuroma. All but one study were case-control studies, mostly on brain tumours, some on salivary gland tumours or uveal melanoma. One was a large cohort study of all Danish mobile phone subscribers between 1982 and 1995 who were followed up for a variety of cancers; no increased risk for any cancer was observed but follow up time was short (Johansen et al. 2001). A recent update of the cohort study with an average follow up time of 8.5 years yielded 14,249 cancer cases observed in the cohort versus 15,001 expected cases based on cancer rates observed in the rest of the Danish adult population (Schüz et al. 2006b). The deficit was mainly attributable to smoking-related cancers, suggesting a healthy cohort effect. The overall relative risk estimates for brain tumours and leukaemia were close to one, however, only 28 brain tumour cases occurred in subscribers of a mobile phone of 10 years or more, whereas 42.5 cases were expected.
The Interphone study is a multinational case-control study coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It is a population-based study with prospective ascertainment of incident cases and face-to-face interviews for exposure assessment. With regard to brain tumours, results from the first four components of the Interphone study suggest no risk increase for meningioma or glioma. This is consistently so among subjects with less than 10 years of use. For regular mobile phone users of 10 years or more, no indications of risk increases were seen in three out of four components, namely in Sweden (Lönn et al. 2005), Denmark (Christensen et al. 2005) and the UK (Hepworth et al. 2006), but the German component does reveal a somewhat raised relative risk estimate for glioma (Schüz et al. 2006a). This increase, however, is based on small numbers and due to the wide confidence interval the result is not in contradiction with the other Interphone components.
In contrast, a Swedish group not participating in the Interphone-study, conducting several case-control studies using self-administered questionnaires for exposure assessment, has repeatedly observed increased relative risk estimates for brain tumours. In 2006, the group revisited their previously published studies and reported statistically significant risk increases for both analogue and digital mobile phones as well as cordless phones already after one year of use (Hardell et al. 2006). After ten years of use they observed about a doubling of the relative risk estimates, with the strongest increase for high grade glioma.
Acoustic neuromas, benign tumours that develop very slowly, arise from the Schwann cells, which enfold the vestibulocochlear nerve (VIII. cranial nerve). They are of particular interest because of their location. The Hardell-group from Sweden has in several studies reported raised relative risk estimates for acoustic neuroma, also with very short induction periods (Hardell et al. 2005b). Three of the Interphone components, Denmark, Sweden, and Japan, have reported their country specific acoustic neuroma results (Christensen et al. 2004, Lönn et al. 2004, Takebayashi et al. 2006). Lönn et al. (2004) reported a doubling of the relative risk estimate after ten years of regular mobile phone use compared to subjects who never used a mobile phone regularly. This association became stronger when the analysis was restricted to preferred phone use at the same side as the tumour. Christensen’s and Takebayashi’s results did not support this, but they were based on fewer long-term users. Five of thirteen countries of the Interphone study (including Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were pooled for a joint analysis to examine the association between mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma (Schoemaker et al. 2005). While no overall association was seen among all long-term users (see Table 3), the data suggest that there may be an increased risk when the preferred side of the head of use is considered in the analysis. For 10+ years of use of mobile phones, the relative risk for acoustic neuroma at the preferred side of use was 1.8 (95%-CI 1.1-3.1). Because of methodological inter-study differences it would have been of considerable interest to compare the results across the six studies, but small numbers in most of the centres preclude that analysis.
All those studies are facing limitations in their exposure assessment, which was either a list of subscribers from the operators or self-reported mobile phone use. While the first method is an objective measure, it has limitations because subscription predicts use of a mobile phone only to some extent. Recent validation studies in volunteers comparing current self-reported use with traffic records from network operators show a moderate agreement, but it cannot be excluded that agreement is worse with respect to past mobile phone use or among patients with brain tumours (Vrijheid et al. 2006). Especially patients with high stage glioma showed some memory performance problems in the Danish Interphone study (Christensen et al. 2005). What seems to be reassuring despite these shortcomings is, that once the amount of mobile phone use is estimated with some validity, this is a satisfactory proxy for RF field exposure from these devices, as was shown in studies recording output power of mobile phones during operation (Berg et al. 2005). Laterality (side) of use is not easy to obtain in a retrospective study, as early symptoms may affect the side of use. Although some results are now available for long- term users, their numbers are still small and the results of the whole Interphone dataset should be awaited before drawing conclusions.
No striking new results appeared for studies on occupational and residential RF fields exposures since the previous opinion. While some positive associations have been reported from occupational studies, the overall picture is far from clear (Ahlbom et al. 2004). Many studies lack individual exposure assessment and only job titles or branches were used as exposure proxies. Studies on exposure from transmitters are limited by crude exposure measures and small numbers of exposed subjects, and the ecological nature of most studies.
Discussion
Mobile phones in relation to health are now being studied with great effort and in comprehensive studies, particularly in the Interphone Study. The results of the Interphone Study will soon become available. It has to be doubted, however, that the results will be entirely conclusive, as the first results from published national components of this study already raise a number of questions with respect to the potential of bias. Another limitation is that also in the current studies, long-term mobile phone users have had hardly more than 10 years of regular use of mobile phones, which still may be a relatively short latency period, particularly for slowly growing benign tumours. Among those long-term users, most were initially users of analogue mobile phone and thus, the number of long-term users of the digital technology is even smaller. Prospective long term follow up studies overcome both the limitations of retrospective exposure assessment and the latency problem and are recommended as a powerful long-term surveillance system for a variety of potential endpoints, including cancer, to fill current gaps in knowledge.
Current Practice in Mobile Work
Workshop Innovation Mobile Collaborative Workplaces February Rome Session Current practice mobile work Insights from European case studies Torsten Brodt University Gallen Liz Carver BAE Systems Erik Andriessen and Robert Verburg Delft Olli Martikainen Oulu University Adam Turowiec ITTI Innovation Mobile Work Rome Brodt page Agenda Introduction Mobile work how working Key success factors Discussion Innovation Mobile Work Rome Brodt page This workshop deals with the current practice mobile work and its actual enablers and barriers From the workshop announcement The objective this workshop bring together practitioners researchers solution developers and policy makers explore the potential for innovation and change supporting work practices particular will discuss current practice and future scenarios for new ways working address important societal and organizational challenges creating systems change Innovation Mobile Work Rome Brodt page The current practice assessment has two main objectives stay real and derive insights from the field Main objectives Stay real Keep the research efforts realistic and with two feet the ground what the state the art compared all the visions Where and why are mobile work environments found really novel the development evolutionary revolutionary Which organizations are waiting for what type guidelines Derive insights into potential technical organisational process.
Mobile Encountered Problems
Problems encountered by disabled and elderly people using mobile telephones
Blind and Partially Sighted
The decreasing size of handsets has brought advantages to many users but at the expense of small keypads, limited sidetone, and small visual displays that people with visual disabilities find inaccessible.
People with visual impairments often cannot locate or identify controls or input slots or operate controls that require sight.
Some people are unable to distinguish between certain colour combinations used on mobile telephone screens and keypads.
Photograph of a man with a hearing aid holding a telephone receiver
Hearing impaired
Users of hearing aids experience disturbances due to electromagnetic interference (EMI) from digital mobile phones. The rapid pulsation of radio signals from digital mobile telephones can give rise to a buzzing, humming, squealing or squelch inside the hearing aid.
Hearing impaired users cannot locate or identify controls that require hearing (e.g. a voice-based interactive mobile telephone that can be controlled only by listening to menu items and then pressing buttons).
Physically impaired
With the advent of smaller mobile telephones, people who have physical impairments may find it hard to hold and activate the buttons on a phone.
For people who are speech impaired, communicating using a mobile telephone in general and speaking clearly to activate functions by voice commands is not always possible.
Cognitively impaired
People with cognitive or learning impairments may experience problems with the operating systems of complicated mobile telephones.
Elderly lady using a mobile telephone
Elderly
Elderly people can often experience a range of difficulties with mobile telephones, such as those stated above: from the screen being too small to see; incompatibility with a hearing aid and too many complicated specialised functions.
Blind and Partially Sighted
The decreasing size of handsets has brought advantages to many users but at the expense of small keypads, limited sidetone, and small visual displays that people with visual disabilities find inaccessible.
People with visual impairments often cannot locate or identify controls or input slots or operate controls that require sight.
Some people are unable to distinguish between certain colour combinations used on mobile telephone screens and keypads.
Photograph of a man with a hearing aid holding a telephone receiver
Hearing impaired
Users of hearing aids experience disturbances due to electromagnetic interference (EMI) from digital mobile phones. The rapid pulsation of radio signals from digital mobile telephones can give rise to a buzzing, humming, squealing or squelch inside the hearing aid.
Hearing impaired users cannot locate or identify controls that require hearing (e.g. a voice-based interactive mobile telephone that can be controlled only by listening to menu items and then pressing buttons).
Physically impaired
With the advent of smaller mobile telephones, people who have physical impairments may find it hard to hold and activate the buttons on a phone.
For people who are speech impaired, communicating using a mobile telephone in general and speaking clearly to activate functions by voice commands is not always possible.
Cognitively impaired
People with cognitive or learning impairments may experience problems with the operating systems of complicated mobile telephones.
Elderly lady using a mobile telephone
Elderly
Elderly people can often experience a range of difficulties with mobile telephones, such as those stated above: from the screen being too small to see; incompatibility with a hearing aid and too many complicated specialised functions.
About Mobile Phone Usages
* In 2005 there were 55 million subscribers in the UK
* At the end of March 2005 there were an estimated 61.1 million active mobile subscriptions in the UK, of which almost 90% were held directly by the five mobile network operators
* There is an estimated 140 million handsets/SIM cards in the UK
* In January to April 2006, 30% of households possessed a mobile telephone that could access the Internet
* Research for the last quarter of 2005 showed that 36% of mobile owners used their phones to send and receive picture messages, up from 21% at the same point in 2004.
* Less than 40% of consumers who own a 3G handset actually use it for 3G services
* Around 40 million adults in Europe (around 9% of the adult population) experience problems using mobile telephones
* In September 2007, Britons sent 4.8 billion text messages
* In December 2007, Britons sent 57.6 million picture messages, up 50% on 2006.
* It is estimated that over 2007 a total of 52 billion text messages were sent
* Shipments of multimedia mobile phones in 2008 will exceed 300 million units
* In 2009 it is estimated that there will be three billion mobile phone users worldwide
* Sales of touchscreen phones will hit 200 million by 2011
* At the end of March 2005 there were an estimated 61.1 million active mobile subscriptions in the UK, of which almost 90% were held directly by the five mobile network operators
* There is an estimated 140 million handsets/SIM cards in the UK
* In January to April 2006, 30% of households possessed a mobile telephone that could access the Internet
* Research for the last quarter of 2005 showed that 36% of mobile owners used their phones to send and receive picture messages, up from 21% at the same point in 2004.
* Less than 40% of consumers who own a 3G handset actually use it for 3G services
* Around 40 million adults in Europe (around 9% of the adult population) experience problems using mobile telephones
* In September 2007, Britons sent 4.8 billion text messages
* In December 2007, Britons sent 57.6 million picture messages, up 50% on 2006.
* It is estimated that over 2007 a total of 52 billion text messages were sent
* Shipments of multimedia mobile phones in 2008 will exceed 300 million units
* In 2009 it is estimated that there will be three billion mobile phone users worldwide
* Sales of touchscreen phones will hit 200 million by 2011
Sunday, August 3, 2008
No Causal Evidence for Mobile Phone - Brain Cancer Link
Could your mobile phone be hazardous to your health? Probably not, unless you're using it while driving and raise your risk of a car accident, says John E. Moulder, PhD, Medical College of Wisconsin Professor of Radiation Oncology.
Dr. Moulder, a radiation biologist and an authority on electromagnetic fields and human health, has published numerous articles over the past five years in international professional publications exploring possible health risks posed by the use of mobile phones* - including fears that such phones could cause brain cancer because they emit radiofrequency (RF) energy.
In an article in IEEE Spectrum (August, 2000), a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, he and another scientist, Kenneth R. Foster of the University of Pennsylvania, traced the origins of the phone-cancer link speculation. The authors wrote that research into health concerns over the use of mobile phones grew out of a 1992 Florida lawsuit that alleged that a woman's fatal brain cancer had been caused by her use of a mobile phone.
"The suit was dismissed by a federal court in 1995 for lack of valid scientific evidence," they wrote, "and similar suits since have been no more successful. But they … raised questions for which no entirely satisfactory answers existed at the time. Driven in part by these disturbing allegations, a new wave of research in the United States and elsewhere is exploring possible links between cell phone radiation and cancer."
'No Consistent Evidence'
Since then, researchers have reached a broad consensus, Dr. Moulder says: "Multiple studies have looked for excess brain cancer in users of mobile phones, and these studies have found no consistent evidence for any such increase."
The US Food and Drug Administration agrees. In a 2003 update, the FDA said: "The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones."
But both Dr. Moulder and the FDA caution that the absence of increased cases of brain cancer by mobile phone users does not necessarily mean that wireless phones are perfectly safe, either.
"It is impossible to prove that anything is 'absolutely safe,' " Dr. Moulder says. "The controversy about RF radiation and cancer reflects difficulties inherent in cancer risk assessment. It is relatively easy to identify strong human carcinogenic risks (for example, cigarette smoking and lung cancer), but proving the absolute absence of a carcinogenic risk is both practically and theoretically impossible."
The FDA, noting that the low levels of RF energy in wireless phones in use or on standby are similar to that of a microwave oven, says: "Many studies of low level RF exposures have not found any biological effects. Some studies have suggested that some biological effects may occur, but such findings have not been confirmed by additional research. In some cases, other researchers have had difficulty in reproducing those studies, or in determining the reasons for inconsistent results."
So, do mobile phones cause brain cancer? Dr Moulder would argue that that is the wrong question.
"Better questions to ask," Dr. Moulder says, are 'How hard have scientists looked for evidence that RF radiation causes cancer?' and 'How strong is the overall evidence linking RF radiation and cancer?' "
"Scientists have looked very hard for human, animal and cellular evidence that RF radiation from mobile phones could cause cancer," says Dr. Moulder. "And they have found no strong or consistent evidence for a such causal link."
Currently, he adds, there is diminishing scientific interest in the subject. "The obvious studies have been done and have found no consistent evidence for carcinogenic potential. Most scientists have very little interest in trying to prove that something does not cause cancer when almost no one thinks that it does."
So if wireless phones are not likely to cause brain cancer, but cannot be called "absolutely safe," what should the user think?
Newer Phones, Less RF Power
"In general," Dr. Moulder says, "the newer mobile phones have lower maximum power than the older ones. Also, the newer phones have 'adaptive power control,' so that they decrease their power when they are near a base station. Since the base stations are more common than they used to be, the actual power produced by the handsets is generally lower than it used to be," he says.
"The issue is whether the benefits of the technology are sufficient that the remaining uncertainty is acceptable. If readers are worried about exposure to RF radiation from mobile phones, they can do three things to reduce exposure:
# talk less
# when possible, avoid using the phone where the signal strength is weak, since the weaker the signal you are getting the stronger the phone has to respond
# use a headset and keep the body of the phone away from you."
And don't use a mobile phone while driving, Dr. Moulder adds, noting that the problem isn't limited to motorists. "I have also seen people here in Milwaukee talking on mobile phones while on bicycles, motorcycles, and roller-blades, so it is not just cars."
"Operating a vehicle while using a mobile phone is clearly hazardous to the user and the rest of us (e.g., other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians). That is the only known hazard from the use of mobile phones, although discourteous use of a phone where it offends other people may be a hazard to the user."
Dr. Moulder, a radiation biologist and an authority on electromagnetic fields and human health, has published numerous articles over the past five years in international professional publications exploring possible health risks posed by the use of mobile phones* - including fears that such phones could cause brain cancer because they emit radiofrequency (RF) energy.
In an article in IEEE Spectrum (August, 2000), a publication of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, he and another scientist, Kenneth R. Foster of the University of Pennsylvania, traced the origins of the phone-cancer link speculation. The authors wrote that research into health concerns over the use of mobile phones grew out of a 1992 Florida lawsuit that alleged that a woman's fatal brain cancer had been caused by her use of a mobile phone.
"The suit was dismissed by a federal court in 1995 for lack of valid scientific evidence," they wrote, "and similar suits since have been no more successful. But they … raised questions for which no entirely satisfactory answers existed at the time. Driven in part by these disturbing allegations, a new wave of research in the United States and elsewhere is exploring possible links between cell phone radiation and cancer."
'No Consistent Evidence'
Since then, researchers have reached a broad consensus, Dr. Moulder says: "Multiple studies have looked for excess brain cancer in users of mobile phones, and these studies have found no consistent evidence for any such increase."
The US Food and Drug Administration agrees. In a 2003 update, the FDA said: "The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones."
But both Dr. Moulder and the FDA caution that the absence of increased cases of brain cancer by mobile phone users does not necessarily mean that wireless phones are perfectly safe, either.
"It is impossible to prove that anything is 'absolutely safe,' " Dr. Moulder says. "The controversy about RF radiation and cancer reflects difficulties inherent in cancer risk assessment. It is relatively easy to identify strong human carcinogenic risks (for example, cigarette smoking and lung cancer), but proving the absolute absence of a carcinogenic risk is both practically and theoretically impossible."
The FDA, noting that the low levels of RF energy in wireless phones in use or on standby are similar to that of a microwave oven, says: "Many studies of low level RF exposures have not found any biological effects. Some studies have suggested that some biological effects may occur, but such findings have not been confirmed by additional research. In some cases, other researchers have had difficulty in reproducing those studies, or in determining the reasons for inconsistent results."
So, do mobile phones cause brain cancer? Dr Moulder would argue that that is the wrong question.
"Better questions to ask," Dr. Moulder says, are 'How hard have scientists looked for evidence that RF radiation causes cancer?' and 'How strong is the overall evidence linking RF radiation and cancer?' "
"Scientists have looked very hard for human, animal and cellular evidence that RF radiation from mobile phones could cause cancer," says Dr. Moulder. "And they have found no strong or consistent evidence for a such causal link."
Currently, he adds, there is diminishing scientific interest in the subject. "The obvious studies have been done and have found no consistent evidence for carcinogenic potential. Most scientists have very little interest in trying to prove that something does not cause cancer when almost no one thinks that it does."
So if wireless phones are not likely to cause brain cancer, but cannot be called "absolutely safe," what should the user think?
Newer Phones, Less RF Power
"In general," Dr. Moulder says, "the newer mobile phones have lower maximum power than the older ones. Also, the newer phones have 'adaptive power control,' so that they decrease their power when they are near a base station. Since the base stations are more common than they used to be, the actual power produced by the handsets is generally lower than it used to be," he says.
"The issue is whether the benefits of the technology are sufficient that the remaining uncertainty is acceptable. If readers are worried about exposure to RF radiation from mobile phones, they can do three things to reduce exposure:
# talk less
# when possible, avoid using the phone where the signal strength is weak, since the weaker the signal you are getting the stronger the phone has to respond
# use a headset and keep the body of the phone away from you."
And don't use a mobile phone while driving, Dr. Moulder adds, noting that the problem isn't limited to motorists. "I have also seen people here in Milwaukee talking on mobile phones while on bicycles, motorcycles, and roller-blades, so it is not just cars."
"Operating a vehicle while using a mobile phone is clearly hazardous to the user and the rest of us (e.g., other drivers, cyclists, pedestrians). That is the only known hazard from the use of mobile phones, although discourteous use of a phone where it offends other people may be a hazard to the user."
Cellular Phones
Cellular (cell) phones are a relatively new technology that became widely used in the United States only in the 1990s. Although they have been studied extensively, we don't yet have information on the potential health effects of very long-term use or usage by children. Cell phones wouldn't be expected to cause cancer because they don't emit ionizing radiation.
Periodic reports exist that have observed an association between cell phone use and the risk of brain cancer, but these reports are primarily based on small studies in Sweden. But the weight of the evidence, which is based on larger studies, has shown no association between cell phone use and brain cancer. Studies currently in progress such as the European Interphone Study will provide more information on this subject. For now, the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health and the Federal Communications Commission offers the following advice to people concerned about cell phone use and risk:
If there is a risk from these products -- and at this point we do not know that there is -- it is probably very small. But if you are concerned about avoiding even potential risks, you can take a few simple steps to minimize your exposure to radiofrequency energy (RF). Since time is a key factor in how much exposure a person receives, reducing the amount of time spent using a wireless phone will reduce RF exposure. If you must conduct extended conversations by wireless phone every day, you could place more distance between your body and the source of the RF, since the exposure level drops off dramatically with distance. For example, you could use a headset and carry the wireless phone away from your body or use a wireless phone connected to a remote antenna.
Background
Recent media attention has focused on a possible link between cell phone use and brain cancer, originally because of a lawsuit that alleged such a link. Network news programs ran their own tests of cell phones, reporting to the public that some of them exceed the maximum level of emitted radiofrequency (RF) energy allowed by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association estimated that there were 219 million US cell phone subscribers in mid-2006. Based on the large and still rapidly growing number of cell phone users, and the seriousness of brain tumors, this is clearly a topic of wide concern. This document summarizes what we now know about the carcinogenicity (cancer-causing potential) of using cell phones.
How do cell phones work?
Cell phones operate with radio frequencies (RF), a form of energy located on the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and the waves used in microwave ovens, radar, and satellite stations. Cell phones do not emit ionizing radiation, the type that damages DNA and is known to have the ability to cause cancer.
Cell phone technology works on a system of geographically separated zones called "cells." Each cell has its own "base station" that both receives and emits radio waves. When a call is placed from a cell phone, a signal is sent from the cell phone antenna to that cell’s base station antenna. The base station responds to the cell phone signal by assigning the phone an available RF channel. When the RF channel is assigned, radio signals are simultaneously received and transmitted, allowing voice information to be carried between the cell phone and the base. The base station transfers the call to a switching center, where the call can be transferred to a local telephone carrier or another cell phone.
There are 2 types of wireless phones:
* cordless
* mobile
Cordless phones, commonly used in homes, have base units that are plugged into telephone jacks and wired to a local telephone service; these are not considered "cell" phones. The question of health risks associated with cordless phones, which operate at 1/600 the power of cell phones, has not been raised.
Mobile phones are also known as "cell phones." The antennas of these phones are integrated into the body of the phone. Because the antenna of a mobile phone is close to the phone user’s head, mobile phones pose greater RF exposure than the other types of cordless phones.
How are people exposed?
Many factors affect the amount of RF to which a person is exposed. The number of "cells" in a geographical area depends on the cell phone traffic in that area. For example, large cities may have many cells per square mile, whereas a less-populated, rural area may have a single large cell stretching over several square miles. The farther away a cell phone antenna is from its base station, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. Smaller cells are therefore associated with much lower exposures.
Each geographical cell has a different number of available channels. Cell phones operate ideally with the least amount of interference from neighboring channels. To help achieve the best operation, cell phones automatically step down to the lowest power level available that still maintains a connection with the base station. On the other hand, any physical obstacle, such as buildings or trees, interfering with the connection forces the base station to increase the power sent to the phone. Therefore, the amount of power sent from a base station to a particular cell phone can vary, even within a single call. For additional information on base stations, please see the American Cancer Society document, Cellular Phone Towers.
Cell phone makers are required to report the specific absorption rate (SAR) of their product to the FCC. The SAR is the amount of RF energy absorbed from the phone into the user's local tissues. The upper limit of SAR allowed is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) of body weight. Exposure to RF also depends on the duration and frequency of cell phone use, with more use implying more exposure. Finally, older cell phones (analog models) involve higher exposure than newer, digital equipment.
Do cell phones cause brain cancer?
What studies in humans suggest
Because widespread cell phone use is little more than a decade old, there has been limited opportunity to examine its long-term health effects. However, large case-control studies and cohort studies have compared cell phone use among brain cancer patients and people without brain cancer. In each of the case-control studies, patients with brain cancer were compared to people free of brain cancer, in terms of their past use of cell phones. If the patients reported more cell phone use than those in the study who did not have brain cancer, and if no other differences between the 2 groups could account for the brain cancers, these observations would provide evidence of a possible link between cell phones and brain cancer. The majority of case-control studies have yielded similar results:
* First, the patients with brain cancer did not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding was true when all brain cancers were considered as a group, when individual types of brain cancer were considered, and when specific locations within the brain were considered. In fact, most of the studies showed a tendency toward a lower risk of brain cancer among cell phone uses, for unclear reasons.
* Second, none of the studies showed a "dose-response relationship" -- a tendency for the risk of brain cancer to increase with increasing cell phone use, which would be expected if cell phone use caused brain cancer.
* Third, the studies did not show a clear link between the side of the head on which the brain cancer occurred and the side on which the cell phone was used (with the possible exception of the Swedish study).
Recent results from the Swedish Interphone study of long-term cell phone use, using a population-based case control design indicate the same conclusions. There was no association with risk of any of the brain tumor types studied (glioma or meningioma), or with duration of use, side of use, or amount of use.
Results of the long-term cohort study, which linked data on all of the 420,095 cell phone users in Denmark between 1982 and 2002 to the Danish Cancer Registry, agree with the findings of the case-control studies. Cell phone use, even for more than 10 years, was not associated with an increased risk of developing brain tumors or cancer overall, nor was there an association with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain. As in the case-control studies, no link was found between brain tumor risk and RF dose, as assessed by length of cell phone use, date since first subscription, age at first subscription, or type of cell phone used.
However, these published studies have only limited ability to examine the association between cell phone use and specific subtypes of brain cancer. One subtype that has been studied is acoustic neuroma, a relatively rare, slow-growing tumor of the acoustic nerve (which transmits the sensation of hearing from the ear to the brain) that occurs in less than one adult per 100,000 people per year. At least 9 epidemiological studies have looked for an association between the use of cell phones and acoustic neuroma. Results of these studies have been inconsistent, due largely to variations in study design and statistical challenges posed by the rarity of these tumors. One of the largest and most recent studies analyzed data from the 5 northern European countries, and found no relation of acoustic neuroma risk with cell phone use, duration of use, or number of calls made. According to the researchers, "The study suggested there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."
In summary, there is now considerable epidemiologic evidence that shows no consistent association between cell phone use and overall risk of brain cancer. Some uncertainty remains regarding a possible association with acoustic neuromas. Several large studies now in progress will add markedly to the evidence within a few years.
What the animal and laboratory evidence suggests
Most but not all laboratory studies have reported a lack of RF-induced DNA damage. No increase in spontaneous brain tumors was observed in 2 studies of rats exposed to RF. The risk of lymphoma after radiation in rodents genetically altered to be especially sensitive to cancer-causing influences was increased following whole-body RF exposure.
What do expert agencies say?
Based on animal and human evidence like the examples above, expert agencies have evaluated the cancer-causing potential of cell phone use.
In October 1999, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), responded to increased media focus on cell phones and brain cancer by issuing a Consumer Update on Mobile Phones (including cell phones). In its statement, the CDRH stated, "The available science does not allow us to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe, or that they are unsafe. However, the available scientific evidence does not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the use of mobile phones."
The FCC issued a statement in October 1999 in response to media assertions that some mobile phones exceed the maximum level of emitted radiation permitted. Claiming support from the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the FCC stated that its guidelines "already incorporate a large margin of safety between allowed levels of exposure and exposure thresholds that have been identified with known adverse health effects." The excess levels of exposure reported by the media were "well within that safety margin, and, therefore, there is no indication of any immediate threat to human health from these phones." The FCC is currently undertaking new research to verify the safety of RF levels emitted from mobile phones.
A recent consumer information document issued jointly by the FDA and FCC reaches the same conclusions:
The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe. Wireless phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy (RF) in the microwave range while being used. They also emit very low levels of RF when in the stand-by mode. Whereas high levels of RF can produce health effects (by heating tissue), exposure to low-level RF that does not produce heating effects causes no known adverse health effects. Many studies of low level RF exposures have not found any biological effects. Some studies have suggested that some biological effects may occur, but such findings have not been confirmed by additional research. In some cases, other researchers have had difficulty in reproducing those studies, or in determining the reasons for inconsistent results.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 3 of the main exposure classifying agencies, have not evaluated the carcinogenicity (cancer-causing potential) of cell phone use.
Do cell phones cause any other health problems?
To date, no claims have been made that cell phones are responsible for any other health problems. A small epidemiologic study from Germany found an association between uveal melanoma (a rare form of eye cancer) and exposure to mobile phones and other RF-transmitting devices, but this has not yet been examined in other studies. However, evidence has shown that the use of cell phones while driving increases the risk of automobile crashes. Another concern, without much evidence one way or the other, is that cell phones may interfere with medical electronic devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps.
Can I do anything to lower my exposure to RF from cell phones?
Cell phone users who wish to lower exposure to RF emissions from cell phones may choose to use a corded or cordless earpiece when using their phone. Using an earpiece moves the device away from the user's head, which decreases the amount of radiation that reaches the body. Corded earpieces emit virtually 0 RF emissions, and Bluetooth® earpieces have an SAR value of around 0.001 watts/kg (less than one thousandth the SAR limit for cell phones as set by the FDA and FCC).
Cell phone users can also choose a phone with a low SAR value. According to the FDA,
Information on SAR for a specific phone model can be obtained for many recently manufactured phones using the FCC identification (ID) number for that model. The FCC ID number is usually printed somewhere on the case of the phone. Sometimes it may be necessary to remove the battery pack to find the number. Once you have the ID number, go to the following Web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid. On this page, you will see instructions for entering the FCC ID number.
The FDA also provides information regarding hands-free kits and accessories that claim to shield the head from RF exposure:
Since there are no known risks from exposure to RF emissions from wireless phones, there is no reason to believe that hands-free kits reduce risks. Hands-free kits can be used with wireless phones for convenience and comfort. These systems reduce the absorption of RF energy in the head because the phone, which is the source of the RF emissions, will not be placed against the head. On the other hand, if the phone is mounted against the waist or other part of the body during use, then that part of the body will absorb more RF energy.
Some products that claim to shield the user from RF absorption use special phone cases, while others involve nothing more than a metallic accessory attached to the phone. Studies have shown that these products generally do not work as advertised. Unlike 'hands-free' kits, these so-called 'shields' may interfere with proper operation of the phone. The phone may be forced to boost its power to compensate, leading to an increase in RF absorption.
Periodic reports exist that have observed an association between cell phone use and the risk of brain cancer, but these reports are primarily based on small studies in Sweden. But the weight of the evidence, which is based on larger studies, has shown no association between cell phone use and brain cancer. Studies currently in progress such as the European Interphone Study will provide more information on this subject. For now, the Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health and the Federal Communications Commission offers the following advice to people concerned about cell phone use and risk:
If there is a risk from these products -- and at this point we do not know that there is -- it is probably very small. But if you are concerned about avoiding even potential risks, you can take a few simple steps to minimize your exposure to radiofrequency energy (RF). Since time is a key factor in how much exposure a person receives, reducing the amount of time spent using a wireless phone will reduce RF exposure. If you must conduct extended conversations by wireless phone every day, you could place more distance between your body and the source of the RF, since the exposure level drops off dramatically with distance. For example, you could use a headset and carry the wireless phone away from your body or use a wireless phone connected to a remote antenna.
Background
Recent media attention has focused on a possible link between cell phone use and brain cancer, originally because of a lawsuit that alleged such a link. Network news programs ran their own tests of cell phones, reporting to the public that some of them exceed the maximum level of emitted radiofrequency (RF) energy allowed by the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association estimated that there were 219 million US cell phone subscribers in mid-2006. Based on the large and still rapidly growing number of cell phone users, and the seriousness of brain tumors, this is clearly a topic of wide concern. This document summarizes what we now know about the carcinogenicity (cancer-causing potential) of using cell phones.
How do cell phones work?
Cell phones operate with radio frequencies (RF), a form of energy located on the electromagnetic spectrum between FM radio waves and the waves used in microwave ovens, radar, and satellite stations. Cell phones do not emit ionizing radiation, the type that damages DNA and is known to have the ability to cause cancer.
Cell phone technology works on a system of geographically separated zones called "cells." Each cell has its own "base station" that both receives and emits radio waves. When a call is placed from a cell phone, a signal is sent from the cell phone antenna to that cell’s base station antenna. The base station responds to the cell phone signal by assigning the phone an available RF channel. When the RF channel is assigned, radio signals are simultaneously received and transmitted, allowing voice information to be carried between the cell phone and the base. The base station transfers the call to a switching center, where the call can be transferred to a local telephone carrier or another cell phone.
There are 2 types of wireless phones:
* cordless
* mobile
Cordless phones, commonly used in homes, have base units that are plugged into telephone jacks and wired to a local telephone service; these are not considered "cell" phones. The question of health risks associated with cordless phones, which operate at 1/600 the power of cell phones, has not been raised.
Mobile phones are also known as "cell phones." The antennas of these phones are integrated into the body of the phone. Because the antenna of a mobile phone is close to the phone user’s head, mobile phones pose greater RF exposure than the other types of cordless phones.
How are people exposed?
Many factors affect the amount of RF to which a person is exposed. The number of "cells" in a geographical area depends on the cell phone traffic in that area. For example, large cities may have many cells per square mile, whereas a less-populated, rural area may have a single large cell stretching over several square miles. The farther away a cell phone antenna is from its base station, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. Smaller cells are therefore associated with much lower exposures.
Each geographical cell has a different number of available channels. Cell phones operate ideally with the least amount of interference from neighboring channels. To help achieve the best operation, cell phones automatically step down to the lowest power level available that still maintains a connection with the base station. On the other hand, any physical obstacle, such as buildings or trees, interfering with the connection forces the base station to increase the power sent to the phone. Therefore, the amount of power sent from a base station to a particular cell phone can vary, even within a single call. For additional information on base stations, please see the American Cancer Society document, Cellular Phone Towers.
Cell phone makers are required to report the specific absorption rate (SAR) of their product to the FCC. The SAR is the amount of RF energy absorbed from the phone into the user's local tissues. The upper limit of SAR allowed is 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg) of body weight. Exposure to RF also depends on the duration and frequency of cell phone use, with more use implying more exposure. Finally, older cell phones (analog models) involve higher exposure than newer, digital equipment.
Do cell phones cause brain cancer?
What studies in humans suggest
Because widespread cell phone use is little more than a decade old, there has been limited opportunity to examine its long-term health effects. However, large case-control studies and cohort studies have compared cell phone use among brain cancer patients and people without brain cancer. In each of the case-control studies, patients with brain cancer were compared to people free of brain cancer, in terms of their past use of cell phones. If the patients reported more cell phone use than those in the study who did not have brain cancer, and if no other differences between the 2 groups could account for the brain cancers, these observations would provide evidence of a possible link between cell phones and brain cancer. The majority of case-control studies have yielded similar results:
* First, the patients with brain cancer did not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding was true when all brain cancers were considered as a group, when individual types of brain cancer were considered, and when specific locations within the brain were considered. In fact, most of the studies showed a tendency toward a lower risk of brain cancer among cell phone uses, for unclear reasons.
* Second, none of the studies showed a "dose-response relationship" -- a tendency for the risk of brain cancer to increase with increasing cell phone use, which would be expected if cell phone use caused brain cancer.
* Third, the studies did not show a clear link between the side of the head on which the brain cancer occurred and the side on which the cell phone was used (with the possible exception of the Swedish study).
Recent results from the Swedish Interphone study of long-term cell phone use, using a population-based case control design indicate the same conclusions. There was no association with risk of any of the brain tumor types studied (glioma or meningioma), or with duration of use, side of use, or amount of use.
Results of the long-term cohort study, which linked data on all of the 420,095 cell phone users in Denmark between 1982 and 2002 to the Danish Cancer Registry, agree with the findings of the case-control studies. Cell phone use, even for more than 10 years, was not associated with an increased risk of developing brain tumors or cancer overall, nor was there an association with any brain tumor subtypes or with tumors in any location within the brain. As in the case-control studies, no link was found between brain tumor risk and RF dose, as assessed by length of cell phone use, date since first subscription, age at first subscription, or type of cell phone used.
However, these published studies have only limited ability to examine the association between cell phone use and specific subtypes of brain cancer. One subtype that has been studied is acoustic neuroma, a relatively rare, slow-growing tumor of the acoustic nerve (which transmits the sensation of hearing from the ear to the brain) that occurs in less than one adult per 100,000 people per year. At least 9 epidemiological studies have looked for an association between the use of cell phones and acoustic neuroma. Results of these studies have been inconsistent, due largely to variations in study design and statistical challenges posed by the rarity of these tumors. One of the largest and most recent studies analyzed data from the 5 northern European countries, and found no relation of acoustic neuroma risk with cell phone use, duration of use, or number of calls made. According to the researchers, "The study suggested there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out."
In summary, there is now considerable epidemiologic evidence that shows no consistent association between cell phone use and overall risk of brain cancer. Some uncertainty remains regarding a possible association with acoustic neuromas. Several large studies now in progress will add markedly to the evidence within a few years.
What the animal and laboratory evidence suggests
Most but not all laboratory studies have reported a lack of RF-induced DNA damage. No increase in spontaneous brain tumors was observed in 2 studies of rats exposed to RF. The risk of lymphoma after radiation in rodents genetically altered to be especially sensitive to cancer-causing influences was increased following whole-body RF exposure.
What do expert agencies say?
Based on animal and human evidence like the examples above, expert agencies have evaluated the cancer-causing potential of cell phone use.
In October 1999, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH), part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), responded to increased media focus on cell phones and brain cancer by issuing a Consumer Update on Mobile Phones (including cell phones). In its statement, the CDRH stated, "The available science does not allow us to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe, or that they are unsafe. However, the available scientific evidence does not demonstrate any adverse health effects associated with the use of mobile phones."
The FCC issued a statement in October 1999 in response to media assertions that some mobile phones exceed the maximum level of emitted radiation permitted. Claiming support from the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the FCC stated that its guidelines "already incorporate a large margin of safety between allowed levels of exposure and exposure thresholds that have been identified with known adverse health effects." The excess levels of exposure reported by the media were "well within that safety margin, and, therefore, there is no indication of any immediate threat to human health from these phones." The FCC is currently undertaking new research to verify the safety of RF levels emitted from mobile phones.
A recent consumer information document issued jointly by the FDA and FCC reaches the same conclusions:
The available scientific evidence does not show that any health problems are associated with using wireless phones. There is no proof, however, that wireless phones are absolutely safe. Wireless phones emit low levels of radiofrequency energy (RF) in the microwave range while being used. They also emit very low levels of RF when in the stand-by mode. Whereas high levels of RF can produce health effects (by heating tissue), exposure to low-level RF that does not produce heating effects causes no known adverse health effects. Many studies of low level RF exposures have not found any biological effects. Some studies have suggested that some biological effects may occur, but such findings have not been confirmed by additional research. In some cases, other researchers have had difficulty in reproducing those studies, or in determining the reasons for inconsistent results.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 3 of the main exposure classifying agencies, have not evaluated the carcinogenicity (cancer-causing potential) of cell phone use.
Do cell phones cause any other health problems?
To date, no claims have been made that cell phones are responsible for any other health problems. A small epidemiologic study from Germany found an association between uveal melanoma (a rare form of eye cancer) and exposure to mobile phones and other RF-transmitting devices, but this has not yet been examined in other studies. However, evidence has shown that the use of cell phones while driving increases the risk of automobile crashes. Another concern, without much evidence one way or the other, is that cell phones may interfere with medical electronic devices such as pacemakers and insulin pumps.
Can I do anything to lower my exposure to RF from cell phones?
Cell phone users who wish to lower exposure to RF emissions from cell phones may choose to use a corded or cordless earpiece when using their phone. Using an earpiece moves the device away from the user's head, which decreases the amount of radiation that reaches the body. Corded earpieces emit virtually 0 RF emissions, and Bluetooth® earpieces have an SAR value of around 0.001 watts/kg (less than one thousandth the SAR limit for cell phones as set by the FDA and FCC).
Cell phone users can also choose a phone with a low SAR value. According to the FDA,
Information on SAR for a specific phone model can be obtained for many recently manufactured phones using the FCC identification (ID) number for that model. The FCC ID number is usually printed somewhere on the case of the phone. Sometimes it may be necessary to remove the battery pack to find the number. Once you have the ID number, go to the following Web address: www.fcc.gov/oet/fccid. On this page, you will see instructions for entering the FCC ID number.
The FDA also provides information regarding hands-free kits and accessories that claim to shield the head from RF exposure:
Since there are no known risks from exposure to RF emissions from wireless phones, there is no reason to believe that hands-free kits reduce risks. Hands-free kits can be used with wireless phones for convenience and comfort. These systems reduce the absorption of RF energy in the head because the phone, which is the source of the RF emissions, will not be placed against the head. On the other hand, if the phone is mounted against the waist or other part of the body during use, then that part of the body will absorb more RF energy.
Some products that claim to shield the user from RF absorption use special phone cases, while others involve nothing more than a metallic accessory attached to the phone. Studies have shown that these products generally do not work as advertised. Unlike 'hands-free' kits, these so-called 'shields' may interfere with proper operation of the phone. The phone may be forced to boost its power to compensate, leading to an increase in RF absorption.
Can cell phones/laptops cause cancer radiation?
Certainly laptops do not present a danger, unless they have wireless capability, in which case the danger is very low and unlikely to cause any issues.
With respect to mobile phones, there is no doubt in my mind and educated experience with radio frequency (RF) transmissions, that there are possible adverse effects that these devices have on human tissue. It is still early days and time will tell as it did for smoking, asbestos related products and countless of chemicals and herbacides, in the past.
The simple fact is that everyone should be aware that the longer you use the phone the greater the adverse affects are likely to be. There is no doubt whatsoever, and it is well documented that high levels of RF are DANGEROUS! Cell phones transmit at much lower energy levels, but their consistant and prolonged use may well have a cumalitive effect.
Although there is no proof to indicate that mobile phones can cause cancer, there is sufficient debate to cause doubt as to the relative safety. As a telecommunications engineer I am aware of the power density levels produced by mobile phones and the effect they can have on different people.
Mobile phones transmit using radio frequency radiation (RFR). Dependant on the network this can range between 800MHz and 2GHz. These are radio waves located within the electromagnetic spectrum. X-rays which are known to cause cancer through ionizing radiation are also within the electromagnetic spectrum, however, RFRs cannot cause cancer in the same way as x-rays because RFRs are non-ionizing.
However, high levels of RFRs can cause health effects through heating the human body (thermal effects). To address this health effect, the Radiocommunications (Electromagnetic Radiation Human Exposure) Standard 1999 specifies limits on public exposure to RF radiation from mobile phones. The limits set by this Standard are only a fraction of the levels needed to cause thermal effects.
Whilst it cannot be shown at this point in time that the thermal effects from mobile phones are a health hazard there is a considerable body of scientific literature which describes the effects of RFR in biological systems that cannot be directly attributed to heating. These effects are referred to as non-thermal and have been demonstrated to cause alteration in animal behaviour, or changes in the functioning of cell membranes.
Should you wish to have a bit more reading on the subject from a non-engineering perspective, the following Cancer Council link may be of interest
With respect to mobile phones, there is no doubt in my mind and educated experience with radio frequency (RF) transmissions, that there are possible adverse effects that these devices have on human tissue. It is still early days and time will tell as it did for smoking, asbestos related products and countless of chemicals and herbacides, in the past.
The simple fact is that everyone should be aware that the longer you use the phone the greater the adverse affects are likely to be. There is no doubt whatsoever, and it is well documented that high levels of RF are DANGEROUS! Cell phones transmit at much lower energy levels, but their consistant and prolonged use may well have a cumalitive effect.
Although there is no proof to indicate that mobile phones can cause cancer, there is sufficient debate to cause doubt as to the relative safety. As a telecommunications engineer I am aware of the power density levels produced by mobile phones and the effect they can have on different people.
Mobile phones transmit using radio frequency radiation (RFR). Dependant on the network this can range between 800MHz and 2GHz. These are radio waves located within the electromagnetic spectrum. X-rays which are known to cause cancer through ionizing radiation are also within the electromagnetic spectrum, however, RFRs cannot cause cancer in the same way as x-rays because RFRs are non-ionizing.
However, high levels of RFRs can cause health effects through heating the human body (thermal effects). To address this health effect, the Radiocommunications (Electromagnetic Radiation Human Exposure) Standard 1999 specifies limits on public exposure to RF radiation from mobile phones. The limits set by this Standard are only a fraction of the levels needed to cause thermal effects.
Whilst it cannot be shown at this point in time that the thermal effects from mobile phones are a health hazard there is a considerable body of scientific literature which describes the effects of RFR in biological systems that cannot be directly attributed to heating. These effects are referred to as non-thermal and have been demonstrated to cause alteration in animal behaviour, or changes in the functioning of cell membranes.
Should you wish to have a bit more reading on the subject from a non-engineering perspective, the following Cancer Council link may be of interest
Mobile phone is the cause of Brain Cancer?
The fact is that radio frequency (RF) transmissions are dangerous. As to how dangerous, well that all depends on the intensity and duration of exposure. No one really knows and those that say it is not a problem, have no evidence to substantiate that it is not. Any possible adverse effects that these devices have on human tissue, should not be taken lightly! It is still early days and time will tell as it did for smoking, asbestos related products and countless of chemicals and herbacides, in the past.
The simple fact is that everyone should be aware that the longer you use the phone the greater the adverse affects are likely to be. There is no doubt whatsoever, and it is well documented that high levels of RF are DANGEROUS! Cell phones transmit at much lower energy levels, but their consistant and prolonged use may well have a cumalitive effect.
Although there is no proof to indicate that mobile phones can cause cancer, there is sufficient debate to cause doubt as to the relative safety. As a telecommunications engineer I am aware of the power density levels produced by mobile phones and the effect they can have on different people.
Mobile phones transmit using radio frequency radiation (RFR). Dependant on the network this can range between 800MHz and 2GHz. These are radio waves located within the electromagnetic spectrum. X-rays which are known to cause cancer through ionizing radiation are also within the electromagnetic spectrum, however, RFRs cannot cause cancer in the same way as x-rays because RFRs are non-ionizing.
However, high levels of RFRs can cause health effects through heating the human body (thermal effects), resulting in headaches and possibly other symptoms.
Whilst it cannot be shown at this point in time that the thermal effects from mobile phones are a health hazard there is a considerable body of scientific literature which describes the effects of RFR in biological systems that cannot be directly attributed to heating. These effects are referred to as non-thermal and have been demonstrated to cause alteration in animal behaviour, or changes in the functioning of cell membranes.
To limit the possible adverse effects mobile phones may have I would suggest that anyone concerned about their use should;
- Limit the prolonged use of mobiles to under a couple of minutes at a time.
- Use the phone in handsfree speaker mode.
- Avoid using the phone in a confined space (such as in the car or building) as this causes the phone to radiate at the higher power levels to get a signal out.
Personnaly I avoid using the phone as much as possible and if I need to use it I keep it under a few minutes or use it in hands free speaker phone mode.
The simple fact is that everyone should be aware that the longer you use the phone the greater the adverse affects are likely to be. There is no doubt whatsoever, and it is well documented that high levels of RF are DANGEROUS! Cell phones transmit at much lower energy levels, but their consistant and prolonged use may well have a cumalitive effect.
Although there is no proof to indicate that mobile phones can cause cancer, there is sufficient debate to cause doubt as to the relative safety. As a telecommunications engineer I am aware of the power density levels produced by mobile phones and the effect they can have on different people.
Mobile phones transmit using radio frequency radiation (RFR). Dependant on the network this can range between 800MHz and 2GHz. These are radio waves located within the electromagnetic spectrum. X-rays which are known to cause cancer through ionizing radiation are also within the electromagnetic spectrum, however, RFRs cannot cause cancer in the same way as x-rays because RFRs are non-ionizing.
However, high levels of RFRs can cause health effects through heating the human body (thermal effects), resulting in headaches and possibly other symptoms.
Whilst it cannot be shown at this point in time that the thermal effects from mobile phones are a health hazard there is a considerable body of scientific literature which describes the effects of RFR in biological systems that cannot be directly attributed to heating. These effects are referred to as non-thermal and have been demonstrated to cause alteration in animal behaviour, or changes in the functioning of cell membranes.
To limit the possible adverse effects mobile phones may have I would suggest that anyone concerned about their use should;
- Limit the prolonged use of mobiles to under a couple of minutes at a time.
- Use the phone in handsfree speaker mode.
- Avoid using the phone in a confined space (such as in the car or building) as this causes the phone to radiate at the higher power levels to get a signal out.
Personnaly I avoid using the phone as much as possible and if I need to use it I keep it under a few minutes or use it in hands free speaker phone mode.
Mobile causes stress...when we switch
The Bottom Line Switching from one phone to another is not easy!
Here is a letter that I wrote to T-Mobile recently. The company refuses to speak with me and I wanted to share with others what I am going through with this company just because I switched to a new phone company. I am not sure if others are going through this but if you are please leave me a message. As a consumer and an honest customer I find it very frustrating to be treated in this manner.
Dear T-Mobile Customer Relations,
I am writing to report the abuse that is occurring to me and my family from your company. In September 2003 we purchased a cell phone for my husband on his birthday from T-Mobile. We purchased two phones, one for him and one for me. They were matching phones. We added a line to the contract on my daughter’s birthday June 12, 2004. At that point we changed the contract and were assured it was a one year contract for us. We were pleased at that point with T-Mobile, but as the year went on we had frequent dropped calls, and were unable to reach each other from different areas of our state. We decided that as soon as our contract was up we would switch.
In 2006 we decided we would like Razors and the T-Mobile company did not have razors. So we went to Sam’s club in January and asked them if they could tell us about the razors and how to go about switching. We were told that our contract with T-Mobile could not be changed until July 1 without us receiving a charge for breaking the contract. So we kept our phones.
On July 1 we returned to Sam’s club in Manchester, New Hampshire. At Sam’s club they had a kiosk that had more than one cell phone company and T-Mobile was one of the companies. We inquired about our T-Mobile account and expressed to them that we wanted to switch to razors. We also wanted to add a phone line for our son and we needed a family plan that was the same price that we had.
We were told that our T-Mobile contract was ended and we were doing it at the proper time, being that we were in July and it had been started in June two years earlier. So we were told at that time that we would be fine if we chose to change companies. We were also told that we owed 155.00 to T-Mobile and we would get a bill for that charge. We went ahead with the switch and activated our phones on July 7th, 2006. Nearly three years after our original plan with T-Mobile.
I received a bill from T-Mobile for my last payment of 155.00. I sent in the payment, and then received phone calls from T-Mobile and letters from T-Mobile asking me to return to their company. In October I received a call from a collection company called Diversified Con. telling me that I owed them 600.00 for breaking my contract with T-Mobile and that T-Mobile had sent me to collections for this amount and they would be reporting this to my credit.
I immediately called T-Mobile. T-Mobile assured me this was an error. I heard nothing more until last week. April, 2007. The phone began to ring from Diversified Con. I spoke with them on the phone last week. They told me that I broke my contract and owed them 600.00. I told them they were wrong. They yelled at me and told me I owed them money and threatened me with court. I hung up the phone and called T-Mobile. The representative on the phone from T-Mobile told me that because they had sold my account to the collection company there was no way that they could speak with me. They told me that the account was charged off and they were not allowed to speak with me. Diversified called me again, and I answered the phone and spoke with someone who said he was a manager. I explained the dates to him, explained to him that T-Mobile had assured us that we were all set with canceling our contract and that we were not breaking the contract when we changed our account. He told me that T-Mobile representatives would tell me that so they could charge me the 600.00. He told me I was wrong to have listened and that I owed the 600.00 and could not get out of it. I again called T-Mobile and no one would discuss my account once again. So now, the only way I can stop these phone calls is to pay the 600.00. Which I do not owe.
They told me at T-Mobile to write this dispute letter. So I am doing just that. I am disputing my charges from T-Mobile. I am sending this letter to all of the credit bureaus and I am sending this letter to the Better Business Bureau and I will also be posting this letter at Epinions.com online so that other customers will know how I am being treated. I expect there are many people being treated in this manner by cell phone companies when we try to transfer to new companies. This is unfair and should be illegal to treat people in this manner and then not allow us to even speak with someone from the company that sends our names to collection agencies. I am an honest hardworking mother, and do not deserve to be treated in this manner. I consider the phone calls from Diversified Con to be harassment. The number that they keep calling me from is 1904-247-5500. I have received phone calls from these people at odd hours including Sunday morning. I am frustrated that I can find no one to speak with about this, and only get yelled at by the collection agent. It is very upsetting and unnecessary.
Here is a letter that I wrote to T-Mobile recently. The company refuses to speak with me and I wanted to share with others what I am going through with this company just because I switched to a new phone company. I am not sure if others are going through this but if you are please leave me a message. As a consumer and an honest customer I find it very frustrating to be treated in this manner.
Dear T-Mobile Customer Relations,
I am writing to report the abuse that is occurring to me and my family from your company. In September 2003 we purchased a cell phone for my husband on his birthday from T-Mobile. We purchased two phones, one for him and one for me. They were matching phones. We added a line to the contract on my daughter’s birthday June 12, 2004. At that point we changed the contract and were assured it was a one year contract for us. We were pleased at that point with T-Mobile, but as the year went on we had frequent dropped calls, and were unable to reach each other from different areas of our state. We decided that as soon as our contract was up we would switch.
In 2006 we decided we would like Razors and the T-Mobile company did not have razors. So we went to Sam’s club in January and asked them if they could tell us about the razors and how to go about switching. We were told that our contract with T-Mobile could not be changed until July 1 without us receiving a charge for breaking the contract. So we kept our phones.
On July 1 we returned to Sam’s club in Manchester, New Hampshire. At Sam’s club they had a kiosk that had more than one cell phone company and T-Mobile was one of the companies. We inquired about our T-Mobile account and expressed to them that we wanted to switch to razors. We also wanted to add a phone line for our son and we needed a family plan that was the same price that we had.
We were told that our T-Mobile contract was ended and we were doing it at the proper time, being that we were in July and it had been started in June two years earlier. So we were told at that time that we would be fine if we chose to change companies. We were also told that we owed 155.00 to T-Mobile and we would get a bill for that charge. We went ahead with the switch and activated our phones on July 7th, 2006. Nearly three years after our original plan with T-Mobile.
I received a bill from T-Mobile for my last payment of 155.00. I sent in the payment, and then received phone calls from T-Mobile and letters from T-Mobile asking me to return to their company. In October I received a call from a collection company called Diversified Con. telling me that I owed them 600.00 for breaking my contract with T-Mobile and that T-Mobile had sent me to collections for this amount and they would be reporting this to my credit.
I immediately called T-Mobile. T-Mobile assured me this was an error. I heard nothing more until last week. April, 2007. The phone began to ring from Diversified Con. I spoke with them on the phone last week. They told me that I broke my contract and owed them 600.00. I told them they were wrong. They yelled at me and told me I owed them money and threatened me with court. I hung up the phone and called T-Mobile. The representative on the phone from T-Mobile told me that because they had sold my account to the collection company there was no way that they could speak with me. They told me that the account was charged off and they were not allowed to speak with me. Diversified called me again, and I answered the phone and spoke with someone who said he was a manager. I explained the dates to him, explained to him that T-Mobile had assured us that we were all set with canceling our contract and that we were not breaking the contract when we changed our account. He told me that T-Mobile representatives would tell me that so they could charge me the 600.00. He told me I was wrong to have listened and that I owed the 600.00 and could not get out of it. I again called T-Mobile and no one would discuss my account once again. So now, the only way I can stop these phone calls is to pay the 600.00. Which I do not owe.
They told me at T-Mobile to write this dispute letter. So I am doing just that. I am disputing my charges from T-Mobile. I am sending this letter to all of the credit bureaus and I am sending this letter to the Better Business Bureau and I will also be posting this letter at Epinions.com online so that other customers will know how I am being treated. I expect there are many people being treated in this manner by cell phone companies when we try to transfer to new companies. This is unfair and should be illegal to treat people in this manner and then not allow us to even speak with someone from the company that sends our names to collection agencies. I am an honest hardworking mother, and do not deserve to be treated in this manner. I consider the phone calls from Diversified Con to be harassment. The number that they keep calling me from is 1904-247-5500. I have received phone calls from these people at odd hours including Sunday morning. I am frustrated that I can find no one to speak with about this, and only get yelled at by the collection agent. It is very upsetting and unnecessary.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer: Q&Answers
# Why is there concern that cellular telephones may cause cancer?
There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cellular telephones (also known as “wireless” or “mobile” telephones) may cause certain types of cancer.
* Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy, a form of radiation, which is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1).
* Cellular telephone technology is relatively new and is still changing, so there are no long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1).
* The number of cellular telephone users is increasing rapidly. According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), there are now more than 180 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States. This has increased from 110 million users just 3 years ago. Experts estimate that by 2010, there will be 2.2 billion subscribers worldwide.
For these reasons, it is important to learn whether RF energy affects human health, and to provide reassurance if it does not.
# What is RF energy and how can it affect the body?
RF energy, also called radiowaves, is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be ionizing (high-frequency) or non-ionizing (low-frequency) (2). RF energy belongs to the non-ionizing type of electromagnetic radiation. It is known that ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-ray machines, can present a health risk at high levels of exposure. However, it is not yet known whether non-ionizing radiation poses a cancer risk (2).
The most important use of RF energy is for telecommunications (2). In the United States, cellular telephones operate in a frequency ranging from about 1,800 to 2,200 megahertz (MHz) (1). In that range, the radiation produced is in the form of non-ionizing RF energy. AM/FM radios, VHF/UHF televisions, and cordless telephones (telephones that have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house) operate at somewhat lower radio frequencies than cellular telephones; microwave ovens, radar, and satellite stations operate at somewhat higher radio frequencies (2).
RF energy produces heat, which can increase body temperature and damage those parts exposed to it (1, 2). It is generally agreed that the amount of RF energy encountered by the general public is too low to produce significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature. However, it is also agreed that further research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing RF energy has on the body and whether it is dangerous to people (2).
# How much RF energy are cellular telephone users exposed to?
A cellular telephone user’s level of exposure to RF energy depends on several factors. These include the number and duration of calls, the amount of cellular telephone traffic at a given time, the distance from the nearest cellular base station (a low-powered radio transmitter that communicates with a user’s cellular telephone), the quality of the transmission, how far the antenna is extended, and the size of the handset.
A cellular telephone’s main source of RF energy is its antenna. The antenna of hand-held cellular telephones is in the handset, which is typically held against the side of the head while the telephone is in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person’s expected exposure to RF energy. The amount of RF energy absorbed decreases rapidly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user.
Hands-free kits are a relatively recent feature that can be used with cellular telephones for convenience and comfort. These systems reduce the amount of RF energy exposure to the head because the phone, which is the source of RF energy, is not placed against the head (2). However, most studies conducted on cellular telephone use and cancer risk have focused on hand-held models not equipped with hands-free systems, since they deliver the most RF energy to the user.
The intensity of RF energy emitted by cellular telephones depends on the level of the signal sent to or from the nearest base station (1). A geographic area serviced by a base unit is often referred to as a “cell,” which is why these devices are called “cellular” telephones.
When a call is placed from a cellular telephone, a signal is sent from the antenna of the phone to the nearest base station antenna. The base station routes the call through a switching center, where the call can be transferred to another cellular telephone, another base station, or to the local land-line telephone system. The farther a cellular telephone is from the base station antenna, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. This distance, in part, determines the amount of RF energy exposure to the user.
# What parts of the body may be affected during cellular telephone use?
Because hand-held cellular telephones are used close to the head, there is concern that the RF energy produced by these devices may affect the brain and nervous system tissue in the head. Researchers have focused on whether RF energy can cause malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas (cancers of the brain that begin in the glial cells, which are cells that surround and support nerve cells), as well as benign (non-cancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors that arise in the cells of the nerve that supplies the ear) and meningiomas (tumors that occur in the meninges, which are the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord) (1).
# What studies have been done? What do they show?
Many studies have already been done, and research is ongoing. A study funded by Wireless Technology Research LLC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was conducted in five academic medical centers in the United States. The study analyzed the possible link between brain cancer and cellular telephone use between 1994 and 1998. The study compared a group of 469 men and women with brain cancer to a group of 422 men and women who did not have brain cancer. Results of the study, published in 2000, found that the use of hand-held cellular telephones was unrelated to the risk of brain cancer, but additional studies covering longer periods of cellular telephone use were recommended (3).
The results of another large NCI-funded study of cellular telephones and brain tumors were published in 2001. It focused on 782 patients with one of three types of brain tumors (glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma) at three medical centers between 1994 and 1998. The control group consisted of 799 patients at the same hospitals who did not have brain tumors. The researchers did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among cellular telephone users. The results showed no evidence of increasing risk with increasing years of use, or average minutes of use per day. The study also found that brain tumors did not occur more often than expected on the side of the head on which participants reported using their phone (4).
More recently, a series of multinational case-control studies (studies that compare two groups of people: those with the disease or condition under study (cases), and a very similar group of people who do not have the disease or condition (controls)), collectively called INTERPHONE, have been developed and are being coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The primary objective of these studies is to assess whether RF energy exposure from cellular telephones is associated with an increased risk of cancer. The participating scientists are also exploring other possible causes of brain tumors besides RF energy, including external (environmental) and internal (endogenous) risk factors. Genetic (inherited) factors will be studied in collaboration with the NCI consortium of brain cancer studies. Participating countries include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (5).
The results of the INTERPHONE study are now being published. The first two articles, both published in November 2004, examine the use of cellular telephones and the risk of the benign tumor acoustic neuroma. A Danish study compared 106 individuals having acoustic neuroma with a control group of 212 people without this condition. The study showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term (10 years or more) cellular telephone users when compared to short-term users. Additionally, there was no increase in the incidence of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (6). A Swedish study, however, compared 148 individuals with acoustic neuroma to 604 healthy individuals. This study suggests there is an increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cellular telephone users, but not in short-term users (7).
Other studies from INTERPHONE investigated whether there is a relationship between cellular telephone use and the risk of the brain tumors meningioma and glioma. A Danish study, published in 2005, compared 175 people with meningioma and 252 people with glioma to a control group of 822 disease-free individuals. This study demonstrated no link between meningioma or glioma and cellular telephone use (8). A Swedish study, published in 2005, compared 273 individuals with meningioma and 371 people with gliomas to 674 people who did not have these conditions. This study also showed that people who use cellular telephones are not at an increased risk of meningioma or glioma (9).
Overall, research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer or any other adverse health effect.
# Why aren’t the results of the studies consistent?
Scientists have had to assess how much RF energy people have been exposed to by interviewing individuals involved in a particular study about their cellular telephone habits (including frequency of use and duration of calls). Because of this, the accuracy of the data collected is subject to the memory of the people interviewed. Recently, however, RF-energy-measurement meters have been developed that will accurately measure RF energy exposure (1).
Additionally, cellular telephones have only been widely available for a relatively short period of time (since the 1990s), and cellular technology continues to change (1). For example, older studies evaluated RF exposure from analog telephones; today, most cellular telephones use digital technology. (Analog and digital telephones operate at different frequencies and power levels.) Another new technology is Bluetooth, a wireless technology that allows devices, such as cellular telephones and headsets, to communicate with each other using short-range radio frequency.
Furthermore, brain tumors develop over many years. Scientists have been unable to follow cellular telephone users consistently for the amount of time it might take for a brain tumor to develop (1).
Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that more research needs to be done before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones (1).
# Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cellular telephone use than adults?
There is no evidence that cellular telephone use poses more of a threat to children than to adults (2). However, no study populations to date have included children, who are increasingly heavy users of cellular telephones and are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1).
In addition, children are at greatest risk from agents known to cause brain and nervous system cancers because their nervous systems are still developing. If RF energy from cellular telephones is proven to cause cancer, researchers would expect children to be more susceptible than adults. Again, however, there is no evidence of this to date (1).
# What can cellular telephone users do to reduce their exposure to RF?
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suggested some steps that cellular telephone users can take if they are concerned about potential health risks from cellular telephones:
* Reserve the use of cellular telephones for shorter conversations, or for when a conventional phone is not available.
* Switch to a type of cellular telephone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the antenna and the phone user.
Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable, provides consumers with information on human exposure to RF energy from cellular telephones and other devices at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety on the Internet. This Web page allows consumers to find information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cellular telephones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed into the head of a cellular telephone user. Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone.
# Can cellular telephones interfere with medical equipment?
Yes. Cellular telephones can interfere with pacemakers (electrical devices, implanted in the chest, that stimulate or steady the heartbeat), implanted defibrillators (electrical devices that restore a normal heartbeat by applying an electrical shock to the heart), and hearing aids. However, standards have been established that will allow manufacturers to ensure that cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are safe from cellular telephone RF (2).
There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cellular telephones (also known as “wireless” or “mobile” telephones) may cause certain types of cancer.
* Cellular telephones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy, a form of radiation, which is under investigation for its effects on the human body (1).
* Cellular telephone technology is relatively new and is still changing, so there are no long-term studies of the effects of RF energy from cellular telephones on the human body (1).
* The number of cellular telephone users is increasing rapidly. According to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), there are now more than 180 million subscribers to cellular telephone service in the United States. This has increased from 110 million users just 3 years ago. Experts estimate that by 2010, there will be 2.2 billion subscribers worldwide.
For these reasons, it is important to learn whether RF energy affects human health, and to provide reassurance if it does not.
# What is RF energy and how can it affect the body?
RF energy, also called radiowaves, is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be ionizing (high-frequency) or non-ionizing (low-frequency) (2). RF energy belongs to the non-ionizing type of electromagnetic radiation. It is known that ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-ray machines, can present a health risk at high levels of exposure. However, it is not yet known whether non-ionizing radiation poses a cancer risk (2).
The most important use of RF energy is for telecommunications (2). In the United States, cellular telephones operate in a frequency ranging from about 1,800 to 2,200 megahertz (MHz) (1). In that range, the radiation produced is in the form of non-ionizing RF energy. AM/FM radios, VHF/UHF televisions, and cordless telephones (telephones that have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house) operate at somewhat lower radio frequencies than cellular telephones; microwave ovens, radar, and satellite stations operate at somewhat higher radio frequencies (2).
RF energy produces heat, which can increase body temperature and damage those parts exposed to it (1, 2). It is generally agreed that the amount of RF energy encountered by the general public is too low to produce significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature. However, it is also agreed that further research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing RF energy has on the body and whether it is dangerous to people (2).
# How much RF energy are cellular telephone users exposed to?
A cellular telephone user’s level of exposure to RF energy depends on several factors. These include the number and duration of calls, the amount of cellular telephone traffic at a given time, the distance from the nearest cellular base station (a low-powered radio transmitter that communicates with a user’s cellular telephone), the quality of the transmission, how far the antenna is extended, and the size of the handset.
A cellular telephone’s main source of RF energy is its antenna. The antenna of hand-held cellular telephones is in the handset, which is typically held against the side of the head while the telephone is in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person’s expected exposure to RF energy. The amount of RF energy absorbed decreases rapidly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user.
Hands-free kits are a relatively recent feature that can be used with cellular telephones for convenience and comfort. These systems reduce the amount of RF energy exposure to the head because the phone, which is the source of RF energy, is not placed against the head (2). However, most studies conducted on cellular telephone use and cancer risk have focused on hand-held models not equipped with hands-free systems, since they deliver the most RF energy to the user.
The intensity of RF energy emitted by cellular telephones depends on the level of the signal sent to or from the nearest base station (1). A geographic area serviced by a base unit is often referred to as a “cell,” which is why these devices are called “cellular” telephones.
When a call is placed from a cellular telephone, a signal is sent from the antenna of the phone to the nearest base station antenna. The base station routes the call through a switching center, where the call can be transferred to another cellular telephone, another base station, or to the local land-line telephone system. The farther a cellular telephone is from the base station antenna, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. This distance, in part, determines the amount of RF energy exposure to the user.
# What parts of the body may be affected during cellular telephone use?
Because hand-held cellular telephones are used close to the head, there is concern that the RF energy produced by these devices may affect the brain and nervous system tissue in the head. Researchers have focused on whether RF energy can cause malignant (cancerous) brain tumors such as gliomas (cancers of the brain that begin in the glial cells, which are cells that surround and support nerve cells), as well as benign (non-cancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors that arise in the cells of the nerve that supplies the ear) and meningiomas (tumors that occur in the meninges, which are the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord) (1).
# What studies have been done? What do they show?
Many studies have already been done, and research is ongoing. A study funded by Wireless Technology Research LLC and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was conducted in five academic medical centers in the United States. The study analyzed the possible link between brain cancer and cellular telephone use between 1994 and 1998. The study compared a group of 469 men and women with brain cancer to a group of 422 men and women who did not have brain cancer. Results of the study, published in 2000, found that the use of hand-held cellular telephones was unrelated to the risk of brain cancer, but additional studies covering longer periods of cellular telephone use were recommended (3).
The results of another large NCI-funded study of cellular telephones and brain tumors were published in 2001. It focused on 782 patients with one of three types of brain tumors (glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma) at three medical centers between 1994 and 1998. The control group consisted of 799 patients at the same hospitals who did not have brain tumors. The researchers did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among cellular telephone users. The results showed no evidence of increasing risk with increasing years of use, or average minutes of use per day. The study also found that brain tumors did not occur more often than expected on the side of the head on which participants reported using their phone (4).
More recently, a series of multinational case-control studies (studies that compare two groups of people: those with the disease or condition under study (cases), and a very similar group of people who do not have the disease or condition (controls)), collectively called INTERPHONE, have been developed and are being coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The primary objective of these studies is to assess whether RF energy exposure from cellular telephones is associated with an increased risk of cancer. The participating scientists are also exploring other possible causes of brain tumors besides RF energy, including external (environmental) and internal (endogenous) risk factors. Genetic (inherited) factors will be studied in collaboration with the NCI consortium of brain cancer studies. Participating countries include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (5).
The results of the INTERPHONE study are now being published. The first two articles, both published in November 2004, examine the use of cellular telephones and the risk of the benign tumor acoustic neuroma. A Danish study compared 106 individuals having acoustic neuroma with a control group of 212 people without this condition. The study showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term (10 years or more) cellular telephone users when compared to short-term users. Additionally, there was no increase in the incidence of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (6). A Swedish study, however, compared 148 individuals with acoustic neuroma to 604 healthy individuals. This study suggests there is an increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cellular telephone users, but not in short-term users (7).
Other studies from INTERPHONE investigated whether there is a relationship between cellular telephone use and the risk of the brain tumors meningioma and glioma. A Danish study, published in 2005, compared 175 people with meningioma and 252 people with glioma to a control group of 822 disease-free individuals. This study demonstrated no link between meningioma or glioma and cellular telephone use (8). A Swedish study, published in 2005, compared 273 individuals with meningioma and 371 people with gliomas to 674 people who did not have these conditions. This study also showed that people who use cellular telephones are not at an increased risk of meningioma or glioma (9).
Overall, research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer or any other adverse health effect.
# Why aren’t the results of the studies consistent?
Scientists have had to assess how much RF energy people have been exposed to by interviewing individuals involved in a particular study about their cellular telephone habits (including frequency of use and duration of calls). Because of this, the accuracy of the data collected is subject to the memory of the people interviewed. Recently, however, RF-energy-measurement meters have been developed that will accurately measure RF energy exposure (1).
Additionally, cellular telephones have only been widely available for a relatively short period of time (since the 1990s), and cellular technology continues to change (1). For example, older studies evaluated RF exposure from analog telephones; today, most cellular telephones use digital technology. (Analog and digital telephones operate at different frequencies and power levels.) Another new technology is Bluetooth, a wireless technology that allows devices, such as cellular telephones and headsets, to communicate with each other using short-range radio frequency.
Furthermore, brain tumors develop over many years. Scientists have been unable to follow cellular telephone users consistently for the amount of time it might take for a brain tumor to develop (1).
Although research has not consistently demonstrated a link between cellular telephone use and cancer, scientists still caution that more research needs to be done before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones (1).
# Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cellular telephone use than adults?
There is no evidence that cellular telephone use poses more of a threat to children than to adults (2). However, no study populations to date have included children, who are increasingly heavy users of cellular telephones and are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1).
In addition, children are at greatest risk from agents known to cause brain and nervous system cancers because their nervous systems are still developing. If RF energy from cellular telephones is proven to cause cancer, researchers would expect children to be more susceptible than adults. Again, however, there is no evidence of this to date (1).
# What can cellular telephone users do to reduce their exposure to RF?
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has suggested some steps that cellular telephone users can take if they are concerned about potential health risks from cellular telephones:
* Reserve the use of cellular telephones for shorter conversations, or for when a conventional phone is not available.
* Switch to a type of cellular telephone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the antenna and the phone user.
Additionally, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable, provides consumers with information on human exposure to RF energy from cellular telephones and other devices at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety on the Internet. This Web page allows consumers to find information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cellular telephones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed into the head of a cellular telephone user. Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone.
# Can cellular telephones interfere with medical equipment?
Yes. Cellular telephones can interfere with pacemakers (electrical devices, implanted in the chest, that stimulate or steady the heartbeat), implanted defibrillators (electrical devices that restore a normal heartbeat by applying an electrical shock to the heart), and hearing aids. However, standards have been established that will allow manufacturers to ensure that cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators are safe from cellular telephone RF (2).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
