Mobile Side-Effects

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.