Regular use of mobile phones could cause cancer… Alarmed? Well recent research says using a mobile phone for more than 10 years increases the risk of getting brain cancer!
According to the study published in the latest issue of the journal Occupational Environmental Medicine, even using the mobile phone for just an hour every day for 10 years is enough to increase the risk of developing cancer. The study, headed by two Swedes, Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro and Professor Kjell Hansson Mild of Umea University, is the most inclusive one till date.
It found that people who have been using cell phones for a decade or more are more vulnerable to malignant tumor on the side of the brain where they hold the handset.
The scientists also said that the international standard used to protect the cell phone users from the radiation emitted from them is ‘not safe’ and emphasized on the need to ‘revise’ them with immediate effect.
According to the study, caution is needed during the use of mobile phones and since children are most vulnerable to diseases, they should be discouraged from using cell phones.
Normally, it takes at least 10 years or more for cancer to develop in the body. And since the use of mobile phones have gone up rapidly only recently, so far few people have encountered the risk. Even official assurances from the mobile phone companies that the cell phones produced by them are safe to use are not justified as only very few people have used the cell phones for that long and have been exposed to emissions to develop cancer.
Last month an investigation by the Mobile Telecommunications
and Health Research program funded by the British government and the industry sources claimed that the mobile phones were not associated with any biological or adverse health hazards. But then, even the chairman of the investigation team Professor Lawrie Challis admitted that not enough people using cell phones for longer periods were covered by the program.
Professor Lawrie confessed that they could not rule out the possibility of occurrence of cancer and other diseases among the cell phone users. At the same time, he said that the investigation has given a tip-off that people using cell phones for 10 years or more may contact brain cancer and emphasized on the need for more extensive research on the subject.
The scientists led by Hardell and Mild researched the results of the 11 studies that have so far investigated the occurrence of tumors in people who have used phones for more than a decade, drawing on research in Sweden, Denmark Finland, Japan, Germany, the United States and Britain. They found almost all had discovered an increased risk, especially on the side of the head where people listened to their handsets.
However it must be emphasized that cancer and mobile phones have been linked since a long time. Hard evidence is yet to be found on cancer links, but regular yakkers on mobiles may need to be careful.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Mouth Cancer
Research author Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, a cancer specialist at Tel Aviv University, looked at 500 Israelis who had developed the condition and compared their mobile phone usage with 1,300 healthy controls.
It was found that those who had used the mobile phones against the side of their heads for many hours a day were 50 per cent more likely to develop a tumor of the paratoid gland compared to infrequent users.
The parotid gland is the largest human salivary gland and is located near the jaw and ear, where mobile phones are typically held. The study also suggests that mobile users who live in rural areas may be at an increased risk of cancer because handsets need to emit more radiation to locate fewer antennas.
The research appeared in The American Journal of Epidemiology. Cancer of the salivary gland is a very rare condition. The greatest effects will however be found in heavy users and children over a period of time.
The authors also add that the risks of mobile use can be minimized by using the speaker, hands free devices and limiting the number of calls made and hours spent on the phone.
It was found that those who had used the mobile phones against the side of their heads for many hours a day were 50 per cent more likely to develop a tumor of the paratoid gland compared to infrequent users.
The parotid gland is the largest human salivary gland and is located near the jaw and ear, where mobile phones are typically held. The study also suggests that mobile users who live in rural areas may be at an increased risk of cancer because handsets need to emit more radiation to locate fewer antennas.
The research appeared in The American Journal of Epidemiology. Cancer of the salivary gland is a very rare condition. The greatest effects will however be found in heavy users and children over a period of time.
The authors also add that the risks of mobile use can be minimized by using the speaker, hands free devices and limiting the number of calls made and hours spent on the phone.
Mobile Causes Cancer - Health Care
Mobile Phones cause cancer, well this is not a new information, though there has never been enough evidence on this. A study by the Weizmann Institute of Science, Israel has shown that even low levels of radiation from handsets are harmfu adn encourages the growth of tumors. Thus scientist say that even 10 minute talk on the mobile phone, it increases the rick of cancer.
Up till now researchers were unable to find out any evidence that signals from mobile phones are harmful but scientist suspected that there may be. This study undertaken at Weizmann institute shows that nontherma radiation increases the risk of cancer.
In this study Prof Rony Segar from this institute exposed the rat adn human cells to electromagnetic radiation that is similar to that emitted by cell phones, but at one tenth of the power. Even five minutes of exposure led to cell division and growth.
Prof Segar said "The rea significance of our findings is that cells are not inert to non-therma mobile phones radiation. We used radiation power eves that were around one tenth of those produced by a normal levels that were around one tenth of those produced by a normal mobile. The changes we observed were clearly not caused by heating".
The study concludes that, non necessariy all the mobile phones users wil be affected by cancer. But the extensive use of the mobile phone increases the risk of getting affected, keeping this in mind, mobile phone users shoule be careful and should spread the word of awareness regarding the issue.
Up till now researchers were unable to find out any evidence that signals from mobile phones are harmful but scientist suspected that there may be. This study undertaken at Weizmann institute shows that nontherma radiation increases the risk of cancer.
In this study Prof Rony Segar from this institute exposed the rat adn human cells to electromagnetic radiation that is similar to that emitted by cell phones, but at one tenth of the power. Even five minutes of exposure led to cell division and growth.
Prof Segar said "The rea significance of our findings is that cells are not inert to non-therma mobile phones radiation. We used radiation power eves that were around one tenth of those produced by a normal levels that were around one tenth of those produced by a normal mobile. The changes we observed were clearly not caused by heating".
The study concludes that, non necessariy all the mobile phones users wil be affected by cancer. But the extensive use of the mobile phone increases the risk of getting affected, keeping this in mind, mobile phone users shoule be careful and should spread the word of awareness regarding the issue.
Mobiles, cancer link inconclusive
SHORT-TERM mobile phone use does not cause brain cancer, and talking on a mobile while driving is no more dangerous than having a passenger in the car.
These are the findings of one of the world's largest studies into the possible health risks of mobile technology.
The six-year, $21 million Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research program conducted by British scientists found no association between brain cancer and people who have used mobile phones for less than 10 years. But the risk of long-term mobile phone exposure was still unclear.
Cancer symptoms are rarely detectable until 10 to 15 years after the cancer-producing event, so it is too early to say for certain whether mobile phones could lead to cancer or other diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, the report said.
Further research into the effect of mobile phone use on children was needed because it was possible children might have different or stronger reactions to mobile signals than do adults, the report said.
The program's scientists completed 23 studies into the effects of mobile phones on brain function, the risk of tumours, electrical hypersensitivity and the ability to drive.
The use of mobile phones while driving was found to require greater cognitive function. But phone use was no more dangerous than other distractions such as adjusting controls or passenger noise, the studies found.
The research was funded by the British Government and the mobile phone industry and the findings have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.
Professor Andrew Wood, of the Brain Sciences Institute at Swinburne University of Technology, said the results would reduce some concerns about the safety of mobile phone use, but there were still questions about long-term use of mobile phones and the effect on children. "Children as young as four or five years old are now using handsets and they represent a stage when their nervous systems are still developing," he said.
Bruce Armstrong, professor of public health at Sydney University, said the research showed no evidence that mobile phones affected cells and tissue beyond simply heating them.
These are the findings of one of the world's largest studies into the possible health risks of mobile technology.
The six-year, $21 million Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research program conducted by British scientists found no association between brain cancer and people who have used mobile phones for less than 10 years. But the risk of long-term mobile phone exposure was still unclear.
Cancer symptoms are rarely detectable until 10 to 15 years after the cancer-producing event, so it is too early to say for certain whether mobile phones could lead to cancer or other diseases such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, the report said.
Further research into the effect of mobile phone use on children was needed because it was possible children might have different or stronger reactions to mobile signals than do adults, the report said.
The program's scientists completed 23 studies into the effects of mobile phones on brain function, the risk of tumours, electrical hypersensitivity and the ability to drive.
The use of mobile phones while driving was found to require greater cognitive function. But phone use was no more dangerous than other distractions such as adjusting controls or passenger noise, the studies found.
The research was funded by the British Government and the mobile phone industry and the findings have appeared in peer-reviewed journals.
Professor Andrew Wood, of the Brain Sciences Institute at Swinburne University of Technology, said the results would reduce some concerns about the safety of mobile phone use, but there were still questions about long-term use of mobile phones and the effect on children. "Children as young as four or five years old are now using handsets and they represent a stage when their nervous systems are still developing," he said.
Bruce Armstrong, professor of public health at Sydney University, said the research showed no evidence that mobile phones affected cells and tissue beyond simply heating them.
Mobile Phones, Coffee found unlikely to cause Cancer
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Drinking coffee, using mobile phones or having breast implants is unlikely to cause cancer, according to a risk ranking system devised by an Australian cancer specialist to debunk popular myths.
The cancer risk assessment reaffirms smoking, alcohol and exposure to sunlight as leading risk factors, but allays concerns about coffee, mobile phones, deodorants, breast implants and water with added fluoride.
The five-point system created by University of New South Wales Professor Bernard Stewart lists the risk of cancer from proven and likely, to inferred, unknown or unlikely.
"Our tool will help establish if the level of risk is high, say on a par with smoking, or unlikely such as using deodorants, artificial sweeteners, drinking coffee," Stewart said.
He found active smokers and ex-smokers to be the most at risk, although the risk is reduced for people who quit smoking.
Drinking alcohol was also a high risk factor, particularly for people who also smoke, although Stewart said no specific type of alcoholic drink was most strongly to blame.
Drinking chlorinated water and using a mobile phone was far less likely to cause cancer, Stewart said, although the risks associated with the long-term use of mobile phones had not been fully established.
He said there little risk from drinking coffee, using deodorants, drinking fluoridated water and having breast implants or dental fillings.
Stewart's research was published in the latest edition of the Mutation Research Reviews journal to mark world cancer day on Monday.
The cancer risk assessment reaffirms smoking, alcohol and exposure to sunlight as leading risk factors, but allays concerns about coffee, mobile phones, deodorants, breast implants and water with added fluoride.
The five-point system created by University of New South Wales Professor Bernard Stewart lists the risk of cancer from proven and likely, to inferred, unknown or unlikely.
"Our tool will help establish if the level of risk is high, say on a par with smoking, or unlikely such as using deodorants, artificial sweeteners, drinking coffee," Stewart said.
He found active smokers and ex-smokers to be the most at risk, although the risk is reduced for people who quit smoking.
Drinking alcohol was also a high risk factor, particularly for people who also smoke, although Stewart said no specific type of alcoholic drink was most strongly to blame.
Drinking chlorinated water and using a mobile phone was far less likely to cause cancer, Stewart said, although the risks associated with the long-term use of mobile phones had not been fully established.
He said there little risk from drinking coffee, using deodorants, drinking fluoridated water and having breast implants or dental fillings.
Stewart's research was published in the latest edition of the Mutation Research Reviews journal to mark world cancer day on Monday.
First Cancer, Now Cell Phones Cause a Rash?
The British Association of Dermatologists is warning of a new allergic skin disorder caused by extended use of mobile phones.
As the world turned its ears towards mobile phones, occasional warnings abounded about the radiation from cell phones being linked to particular types of cancer—warnings that were alternately reinforced and debunked by successive studies. Now, the British Association of Dermatology (or BAD) is warning of a new allergic skin condition caused by extended use of mobile phones.
Yes, that's right: talking on your cell all day may not give you a tumor, but it might give you a rash.
Dubbed "mobile phone dermatitis," the condition usually manifests as a rash on the ear or cheek, depending on where metal parts on the phone come into contact with the skin. In some users, the condition could even manifest on the hand or fingers, depending on how folks use their phones.
The condition has only recently been reported and identified— so many cases have probably gone mis-diagnosed or unreported—but the root cause is believed to be a contact allergy to nickel and nickel alloys in phones' casings and buttons. Users to have contact reactions to nickel-plated clothing accessories or jewelry—like buckles and rings—would be at a higher risk for developing a reaction to metal phones.
"Given the widespread use of cell phones, the presence of metal in the exterior casing of these phones and the high prevalence of nickel sensitization in the population, it is not surprising that cell phones can cause allergic contact dermatitis," said Dr. Lionel Bercovitch of Brown University, one of the study's authors.
A study published earlier this year tested for nickel in 22 popular phone handsets from eight manufacturers, and found nickel in ten of them. More fashionable designs with metal accents are generally more likely to contain nickel in their cases or controls.
As the world turned its ears towards mobile phones, occasional warnings abounded about the radiation from cell phones being linked to particular types of cancer—warnings that were alternately reinforced and debunked by successive studies. Now, the British Association of Dermatology (or BAD) is warning of a new allergic skin condition caused by extended use of mobile phones.
Yes, that's right: talking on your cell all day may not give you a tumor, but it might give you a rash.
Dubbed "mobile phone dermatitis," the condition usually manifests as a rash on the ear or cheek, depending on where metal parts on the phone come into contact with the skin. In some users, the condition could even manifest on the hand or fingers, depending on how folks use their phones.
The condition has only recently been reported and identified— so many cases have probably gone mis-diagnosed or unreported—but the root cause is believed to be a contact allergy to nickel and nickel alloys in phones' casings and buttons. Users to have contact reactions to nickel-plated clothing accessories or jewelry—like buckles and rings—would be at a higher risk for developing a reaction to metal phones.
"Given the widespread use of cell phones, the presence of metal in the exterior casing of these phones and the high prevalence of nickel sensitization in the population, it is not surprising that cell phones can cause allergic contact dermatitis," said Dr. Lionel Bercovitch of Brown University, one of the study's authors.
A study published earlier this year tested for nickel in 22 popular phone handsets from eight manufacturers, and found nickel in ten of them. More fashionable designs with metal accents are generally more likely to contain nickel in their cases or controls.
Mobile Phones Don't Cause Cancer?
Not that I ever thought they did, but finally there's some solid research to back this up.
Mobile phone use does not lead to a greater risk of brain tumour, the largest study on the issue has said.
The study of 2,782 people across the UK found no link between the risk of glioma - the most common type of brain tumour - and length of mobile use.
[...]
The research, which was carried out by the British arm of an international project called Interphone, reiterates the findings of most earlier studies in saying that there is no connection between cancer and mobile phone use.
So how exactly did this urban legend gain so much credibility anyway?
Research author Professor Patricia McKinney, Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology at the Leeds University, said: "For regular mobile phone users, there was no increased risk of developing a glioma associated with mobile phone use."
She acknowledged that there appeared to be an increased risk among brain cancer sufferers on the side of the head where they held the phone.
The team, however, did not put this down to a causal link, because almost exactly the same decreased risk was seen on the other side of the head, leaving no overall increase risk of tumours for mobile phone users.
Instead, they blamed biased reporting from brain tumour sufferers who knew what side of the head their tumours were on. (emphasis added)
This conclusion is hard to dispute unless one wishes to argue that cell phones magically redistribute over one's head a fixed probability of brain cancer arising. The allegations of a link between brain tumors and cell phones are pure garbage, and it says something about the sheer extent of public ignorance of elementary physics that such claims were ever taken seriously: low frequency electromagnetic particles simply don't have the energy required to damage DNA, no matter how intensely they're being emitted, and anyone with even the most passing familiarity with quantum mechanics ought to be able to understand why. Once the importance of threshold frequency to radiation's capacity to ionize molecules is grasped, it becomes obvious why one needn't await studies like this one reported by the BBC to dismiss allegations of cancer-inducing powerlines and mobile phones as so much quackery lapped up by ignorant hordes who take fright at anything with the word "radiation" associated with it.
Mobile phone use does not lead to a greater risk of brain tumour, the largest study on the issue has said.
The study of 2,782 people across the UK found no link between the risk of glioma - the most common type of brain tumour - and length of mobile use.
[...]
The research, which was carried out by the British arm of an international project called Interphone, reiterates the findings of most earlier studies in saying that there is no connection between cancer and mobile phone use.
So how exactly did this urban legend gain so much credibility anyway?
Research author Professor Patricia McKinney, Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology at the Leeds University, said: "For regular mobile phone users, there was no increased risk of developing a glioma associated with mobile phone use."
She acknowledged that there appeared to be an increased risk among brain cancer sufferers on the side of the head where they held the phone.
The team, however, did not put this down to a causal link, because almost exactly the same decreased risk was seen on the other side of the head, leaving no overall increase risk of tumours for mobile phone users.
Instead, they blamed biased reporting from brain tumour sufferers who knew what side of the head their tumours were on. (emphasis added)
This conclusion is hard to dispute unless one wishes to argue that cell phones magically redistribute over one's head a fixed probability of brain cancer arising. The allegations of a link between brain tumors and cell phones are pure garbage, and it says something about the sheer extent of public ignorance of elementary physics that such claims were ever taken seriously: low frequency electromagnetic particles simply don't have the energy required to damage DNA, no matter how intensely they're being emitted, and anyone with even the most passing familiarity with quantum mechanics ought to be able to understand why. Once the importance of threshold frequency to radiation's capacity to ionize molecules is grasped, it becomes obvious why one needn't await studies like this one reported by the BBC to dismiss allegations of cancer-inducing powerlines and mobile phones as so much quackery lapped up by ignorant hordes who take fright at anything with the word "radiation" associated with it.
Heavy mobile use causes cancer
Higher risk of salivary gland cancer
Using your mobile phone for several hours every day puts you at more risk of developing cancer of the salivary gland.
That's according to a new study which looked at 500 Israelis suffering from cancer of the salivary gland and compared their mobile phone use with that of 1,300 healthy people. Those who had used a handset against the same side of their head for hours on end were especially at high risk.
They were 50 per cent more likely to develop a salivary gland tumour, BBC News reports.
Researchers at Tel Aviv University said that mobile phone use in Israel is heavier than in most other countries. The study could therefore be viewed as an insight into potential future problems relating to mobile phone use..
Higher exposure
"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," Dr Siegal Sadetzki, who led the research, told BBC News.
Using mobile phones in rural areas pushes the risk up even more, presumably from the stronger signals and therefore higher radiation needed to get reception.
Sadetzki said that children in particular should have limited use of mobile phones, taking a "precautionary approach".
Recent invention
Ed Yong, of Cancer Research UK, agreed. "Mobile phones are a relatively recent invention and new research into any possible health risks is welcome.
"However, it's important to remember that the vast majority of studies so far have found that mobile phones do not increase the risk of any type of cancer."
The Tel Aviv research team will continue the study to see if there are further links between mobile phone usage and cancer.
Using your mobile phone for several hours every day puts you at more risk of developing cancer of the salivary gland.
That's according to a new study which looked at 500 Israelis suffering from cancer of the salivary gland and compared their mobile phone use with that of 1,300 healthy people. Those who had used a handset against the same side of their head for hours on end were especially at high risk.
They were 50 per cent more likely to develop a salivary gland tumour, BBC News reports.
Researchers at Tel Aviv University said that mobile phone use in Israel is heavier than in most other countries. The study could therefore be viewed as an insight into potential future problems relating to mobile phone use..
Higher exposure
"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," Dr Siegal Sadetzki, who led the research, told BBC News.
Using mobile phones in rural areas pushes the risk up even more, presumably from the stronger signals and therefore higher radiation needed to get reception.
Sadetzki said that children in particular should have limited use of mobile phones, taking a "precautionary approach".
Recent invention
Ed Yong, of Cancer Research UK, agreed. "Mobile phones are a relatively recent invention and new research into any possible health risks is welcome.
"However, it's important to remember that the vast majority of studies so far have found that mobile phones do not increase the risk of any type of cancer."
The Tel Aviv research team will continue the study to see if there are further links between mobile phone usage and cancer.
Is Death Good?
death is good
Hell, just about everything i come in contact with on a daily basis causes cancer (hot dogs, this damn computer montitor, the freakin' sun...). but that doesn't mean i'm gonna stop using it. to use that old, worn-out saying, life is short. i'm gonna enjoy every minute of it in the blazing sun, eating a hot, greasy hotdog with relish, ketchup, and mustard, with my cell phone stuck to my ear. if i die at 35 with cancer, i'm gonna look back with no regrets; as opposed to that 87 year-old man who lived long enough to see half his family die...
to wax philosophical, death is an unavoidable part of life; we all are gonna die someday. to spend your life avoiding something that's gonna get you in the end is downright stupid. to accept the inevitable is to live a happy life.
People know that smoking causes cancer and researchers have found all sorts of good evidence. people still smoke.
now they fine how cell phones cause cancer. what for? people will keep on using them anyway. it really is a waste of time to do this kind of research unless there will be cancerfree cigarettes and cancerfree cellphones one day.
but why should anyone want to make them, if customers are quite happy with the cancer-causing device
Hell, just about everything i come in contact with on a daily basis causes cancer (hot dogs, this damn computer montitor, the freakin' sun...). but that doesn't mean i'm gonna stop using it. to use that old, worn-out saying, life is short. i'm gonna enjoy every minute of it in the blazing sun, eating a hot, greasy hotdog with relish, ketchup, and mustard, with my cell phone stuck to my ear. if i die at 35 with cancer, i'm gonna look back with no regrets; as opposed to that 87 year-old man who lived long enough to see half his family die...
to wax philosophical, death is an unavoidable part of life; we all are gonna die someday. to spend your life avoiding something that's gonna get you in the end is downright stupid. to accept the inevitable is to live a happy life.
People know that smoking causes cancer and researchers have found all sorts of good evidence. people still smoke.
now they fine how cell phones cause cancer. what for? people will keep on using them anyway. it really is a waste of time to do this kind of research unless there will be cancerfree cigarettes and cancerfree cellphones one day.
but why should anyone want to make them, if customers are quite happy with the cancer-causing device
Mobile Phone Use Raises Children's Risk of Brain Cancer
Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research in Sweden suggests. The research was reported this month at the first international conference on mobile phones and health.
The experts raised fear that today's young people may suffer an "epidemic" of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren.
After further analysis of data from one of the biggest studies carried out into the risk that the radiation causes cancer, headed by Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, Professor Hardell says, "people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20" had more than five-fold increase in glioma," a cancer of the glial cells that support the central nervous system. The extra risk to young people of contracting the disease from using the cordless phone found in many homes was almost as great, at more than four times higher. Those who started using mobiles young, were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, benign but often disabling tumours of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness.
This is a warning sign. It is very worrying. We should be taking precautions. Hardell believes that children under 12 should not use mobiles except in emergencies and that teenagers should use hands-free devices or headsets and concentrate on texting. At 20 the danger diminishes because then the brain is fully developed. Indeed, he admits, the hazard to children and teenagers may be greater even than his results suggest, because the results of his study do not show the effects of their using the phones for many years. Most cancers take decades to develop, longer than mobile phones have been on the market.
Hardell said, "It looks frightening to see a five-fold increase in cancer among people who started use of mobile in childhood," but he said he "would be extremely surprised" if the risk was shown to be so high once all the evidence was in.
The experts raised fear that today's young people may suffer an "epidemic" of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren.
After further analysis of data from one of the biggest studies carried out into the risk that the radiation causes cancer, headed by Professor Lennart Hardell of the University Hospital in Orebro, Sweden, Professor Hardell says, "people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20" had more than five-fold increase in glioma," a cancer of the glial cells that support the central nervous system. The extra risk to young people of contracting the disease from using the cordless phone found in many homes was almost as great, at more than four times higher. Those who started using mobiles young, were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, benign but often disabling tumours of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness.
This is a warning sign. It is very worrying. We should be taking precautions. Hardell believes that children under 12 should not use mobiles except in emergencies and that teenagers should use hands-free devices or headsets and concentrate on texting. At 20 the danger diminishes because then the brain is fully developed. Indeed, he admits, the hazard to children and teenagers may be greater even than his results suggest, because the results of his study do not show the effects of their using the phones for many years. Most cancers take decades to develop, longer than mobile phones have been on the market.
Hardell said, "It looks frightening to see a five-fold increase in cancer among people who started use of mobile in childhood," but he said he "would be extremely surprised" if the risk was shown to be so high once all the evidence was in.
Laboratory animals revealed an increased cancer risk
Previously a number of studies on laboratory animals looked at the possibility of radio frequency energy causing cancer, and most found no causal link. One exception was a 1997 study that exposed a strain of mice prone to lymphoma to daily doses of radio frequency signals similar to those transmitted by GSM-type handsets during 18 months. The researchers reported that the number of new lymphoma cases among exposed mice was twice that of non-exposed mice.
Other researchers who carried out a similar experiment in 2002 found no significant effect on the number of new lymphoma cases in mice. One difference between the two experiments was the mode of exposure. In the 2002 study the exposure was one hour a day five days a week, whereas in the 1997 study it was 30 minutes twice a day, seven days a week.
Other studies have tested whether exposure to radio frequency fields alone could trigger any type of cancer in normal or genetically predisposed animals. Other studies have investigated whether exposure to RF fields could enhance the development of tumours triggered by cancer-causing chemicals, X-rays or UV radiation. No significant increase in the number of tumour cases has been reported among exposed laboratory animals, but most of these studies used relatively low exposure
Other researchers who carried out a similar experiment in 2002 found no significant effect on the number of new lymphoma cases in mice. One difference between the two experiments was the mode of exposure. In the 2002 study the exposure was one hour a day five days a week, whereas in the 1997 study it was 30 minutes twice a day, seven days a week.
Other studies have tested whether exposure to radio frequency fields alone could trigger any type of cancer in normal or genetically predisposed animals. Other studies have investigated whether exposure to RF fields could enhance the development of tumours triggered by cancer-causing chemicals, X-rays or UV radiation. No significant increase in the number of tumour cases has been reported among exposed laboratory animals, but most of these studies used relatively low exposure
Smart Case About Cancer - Read First
3.3.2 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.
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.
Mobile Phones Will Not Cause Cancer?
Mobile phones will not cause cancer or slow the brain, according to a recently published six-year study, but the jury is not out.
The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Program, possibly the largest investigation so far into health risks associated with mobile telephone technology, was set up to resolve uncertainties identified by previous evaluations of the possible health risks associated with the widespread use of mobile phone technology.
The researchers studied mobile phones, mobile phone base stations --including newer 3G stations-- and the TETRA emergency services radio system used in the UK. The extensive research included five epidemiological studies and eight volunteer studies, three of which explored reported hypersensitivity to signals emitted by phones and base stations.
The study involved commissioning Dr Phil Chadwick of Microwave Consultants Ltd. to design a system producing exposures representative of those in real phones. This model was used in all the volunteer studies so as to eliminate variation in results due to phone design. The resulting device was modified from a commercially available phone and produced in two variants. One simulating a 900 MHz GSM mobile phone and the other a TETRA radio. In both cases the waveform of the emitted fields contained all the significant characteristics of a real signal.
The system had a headset that enabled it to be mounted in one of the standard positions used to assess exposure. Each phone was capable of producing three different exposure conditions: CW (constant RF); modulated (RF that varies in the same way as a mobile phone signal); and sham (ideally no RF, but in practice, an exposure at most 100 times less than in other two conditions). The various output modes were selected using hexadecimal codes so that neither researcher nor subject knew which exposure condition had been selected. The maximum Specific Absorption Rate was 1.3 W/kg averaged over 10 g.
"None of the research so far suggests that biological or adverse health effects are produced by radio frequency exposure from mobile phones. Reassuringly no epidemiological association was found between short-term and long-term mobile phone use (less than ten years) and cancers of the brain or nervous system," states the report.
"Studies on volunteers provided no evidence that brain function is affected by exposure to the signals emitted by mobile phones or by TETRA radios used by the emergency services."
Likewise, studies on electrical hypersensitivity did not support the theory that unpleasant symptoms are experienced as a result of exposure to signals from mobile phones or base stations.
Base station emissions were also measured and exposures confirmed low, although exposure in the immediate vicinity of micro cell installations was found to be higher than those from the larger macro cell installations.
Not surprisingly, the study confirmed that the use of a phone or hand held device while driving does increase risk of accident, but researchers found it caused no greater risk than other in-car distractions. Researchers recommended however, that precautionary advice from vendors of mobile devices was limited and that policy makers need to adopt alternative, more effective methods of communicating the risks associated with operating machinery or driving vehicles while using hand held devices.
The program recognizes that some concerns still remain and has proposed an extension of the study to keep working on these. Priorities will include work to assess whether long-term exposure (greater than ten years) increases the risk of developing cancers of the brain and nervous system and the effects of mobile phone exposure specifically in children.
The debate of whether or not mobile phones cause cancer or affect the brain looks set to continue for some time yet. Evidence contradicting the MTHR project's findings was supplied in a study of 300 people that found frequent mobile phone users did demonstrate slowed brain function. These researchers also want to continue their study over a longer period to examine over 17,000 people.
The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Program, possibly the largest investigation so far into health risks associated with mobile telephone technology, was set up to resolve uncertainties identified by previous evaluations of the possible health risks associated with the widespread use of mobile phone technology.
The researchers studied mobile phones, mobile phone base stations --including newer 3G stations-- and the TETRA emergency services radio system used in the UK. The extensive research included five epidemiological studies and eight volunteer studies, three of which explored reported hypersensitivity to signals emitted by phones and base stations.
The study involved commissioning Dr Phil Chadwick of Microwave Consultants Ltd. to design a system producing exposures representative of those in real phones. This model was used in all the volunteer studies so as to eliminate variation in results due to phone design. The resulting device was modified from a commercially available phone and produced in two variants. One simulating a 900 MHz GSM mobile phone and the other a TETRA radio. In both cases the waveform of the emitted fields contained all the significant characteristics of a real signal.
The system had a headset that enabled it to be mounted in one of the standard positions used to assess exposure. Each phone was capable of producing three different exposure conditions: CW (constant RF); modulated (RF that varies in the same way as a mobile phone signal); and sham (ideally no RF, but in practice, an exposure at most 100 times less than in other two conditions). The various output modes were selected using hexadecimal codes so that neither researcher nor subject knew which exposure condition had been selected. The maximum Specific Absorption Rate was 1.3 W/kg averaged over 10 g.
"None of the research so far suggests that biological or adverse health effects are produced by radio frequency exposure from mobile phones. Reassuringly no epidemiological association was found between short-term and long-term mobile phone use (less than ten years) and cancers of the brain or nervous system," states the report.
"Studies on volunteers provided no evidence that brain function is affected by exposure to the signals emitted by mobile phones or by TETRA radios used by the emergency services."
Likewise, studies on electrical hypersensitivity did not support the theory that unpleasant symptoms are experienced as a result of exposure to signals from mobile phones or base stations.
Base station emissions were also measured and exposures confirmed low, although exposure in the immediate vicinity of micro cell installations was found to be higher than those from the larger macro cell installations.
Not surprisingly, the study confirmed that the use of a phone or hand held device while driving does increase risk of accident, but researchers found it caused no greater risk than other in-car distractions. Researchers recommended however, that precautionary advice from vendors of mobile devices was limited and that policy makers need to adopt alternative, more effective methods of communicating the risks associated with operating machinery or driving vehicles while using hand held devices.
The program recognizes that some concerns still remain and has proposed an extension of the study to keep working on these. Priorities will include work to assess whether long-term exposure (greater than ten years) increases the risk of developing cancers of the brain and nervous system and the effects of mobile phone exposure specifically in children.
The debate of whether or not mobile phones cause cancer or affect the brain looks set to continue for some time yet. Evidence contradicting the MTHR project's findings was supplied in a study of 300 people that found frequent mobile phone users did demonstrate slowed brain function. These researchers also want to continue their study over a longer period to examine over 17,000 people.
Mobile phones, coffee found unlikely to cause cancer
People can now breathe a sigh of relief for a new report designed to combat urban myths has found that mobile phones, coffee and deodorants are not likely to cause cancer.
The report was compiled by Australian cancer specialist Professor Brendan Stewart at the University of New South Wales and has been published in the academic journal Mutation Research Reviews.
Titled 'Banding carcinogenic risks in developed countries: A procedural basis for qualitative assessment,' the article looked at all available research not only to determine which chemicals or activities were most likely to cause the dreaded disease, but also to find out which are the greatest risk to people.
Based on his findings, Professor Stewart said that coffee, artificial sweeteners, deodorants, dental fillings and breast implants were extremely unlikely to cause the disease.
However, those most likely to cause cancer are smoking, drinking alcohol and deliberate exposure to sunlight.
"In terms of most deaths caused and the potential to save the most lives, cigarettes are number one," News.com.au quoted Prof Stewart, as saying.
"Cigarettes are the only consumer product which are lethal when used in accordance with the manufacturer's intention. In terms of proven risk, tobacco smoking and asbestos are equal in terms of the nature of the evidence; but in terms of numbers of people dying, tobacco is far worse."
Also likely to cause the disease are air pollution, solarium tanning, smoking marijuana and some chemicals in processed meats.
He also said that the media reports were leaving people confused and alarmed unnecessarily.
"People are incredibly confused. When they read stories in the media about different studies in isolation it is difficult for them to know how much concern they should attach to it," he said.
"I found a way of ordering the evidence in terms of carcinogenicity and the evidence of the circumstances of exposure. It is important to ensure that attention given to proven means of preventing cancer is not reduced by unnecessary public concern about risks that may have no impact at all."
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Drinking coffee, using mobile phones or having breast implants is unlikely to cause cancer, according to a risk ranking system devised by an Australian cancer specialist to debunk popular myths.
The cancer risk assessment reaffirms smoking, alcohol and exposure to sunlight as leading risk factors, but allays concerns about coffee, mobile phones, deodorants, breast implants and water with added fluoride.
The five-point system created by University of New South Wales Professor Bernard Stewart lists the risk of cancer from proven and likely, to inferred, unknown or unlikely.
"Our tool will help establish if the level of risk is high, say on a par with smoking, or unlikely such as using deodorants, artificial sweeteners, drinking coffee," Stewart said.
He found active smokers and ex-smokers to be the most at risk, although the risk is reduced for people who quit smoking.
Drinking alcohol was also a high risk factor, particularly for people who also smoke, although Stewart said no specific type of alcoholic drink was most strongly to blame.
Drinking chlorinated water and using a mobile phone was far less likely to cause cancer, Stewart said, although the risks associated with the long-term use of mobile phones had not been fully established.
He said there little risk from drinking coffee, using deodorants, drinking fluoridated water and having breast implants or dental fillings.
Stewart's research was published in the latest edition of the Mutation Research Reviews journal to mark world cancer day on Monday.
(Reporting by James Grubel; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)
The report was compiled by Australian cancer specialist Professor Brendan Stewart at the University of New South Wales and has been published in the academic journal Mutation Research Reviews.
Titled 'Banding carcinogenic risks in developed countries: A procedural basis for qualitative assessment,' the article looked at all available research not only to determine which chemicals or activities were most likely to cause the dreaded disease, but also to find out which are the greatest risk to people.
Based on his findings, Professor Stewart said that coffee, artificial sweeteners, deodorants, dental fillings and breast implants were extremely unlikely to cause the disease.
However, those most likely to cause cancer are smoking, drinking alcohol and deliberate exposure to sunlight.
"In terms of most deaths caused and the potential to save the most lives, cigarettes are number one," News.com.au quoted Prof Stewart, as saying.
"Cigarettes are the only consumer product which are lethal when used in accordance with the manufacturer's intention. In terms of proven risk, tobacco smoking and asbestos are equal in terms of the nature of the evidence; but in terms of numbers of people dying, tobacco is far worse."
Also likely to cause the disease are air pollution, solarium tanning, smoking marijuana and some chemicals in processed meats.
He also said that the media reports were leaving people confused and alarmed unnecessarily.
"People are incredibly confused. When they read stories in the media about different studies in isolation it is difficult for them to know how much concern they should attach to it," he said.
"I found a way of ordering the evidence in terms of carcinogenicity and the evidence of the circumstances of exposure. It is important to ensure that attention given to proven means of preventing cancer is not reduced by unnecessary public concern about risks that may have no impact at all."
CANBERRA (Reuters) - Drinking coffee, using mobile phones or having breast implants is unlikely to cause cancer, according to a risk ranking system devised by an Australian cancer specialist to debunk popular myths.
The cancer risk assessment reaffirms smoking, alcohol and exposure to sunlight as leading risk factors, but allays concerns about coffee, mobile phones, deodorants, breast implants and water with added fluoride.
The five-point system created by University of New South Wales Professor Bernard Stewart lists the risk of cancer from proven and likely, to inferred, unknown or unlikely.
"Our tool will help establish if the level of risk is high, say on a par with smoking, or unlikely such as using deodorants, artificial sweeteners, drinking coffee," Stewart said.
He found active smokers and ex-smokers to be the most at risk, although the risk is reduced for people who quit smoking.
Drinking alcohol was also a high risk factor, particularly for people who also smoke, although Stewart said no specific type of alcoholic drink was most strongly to blame.
Drinking chlorinated water and using a mobile phone was far less likely to cause cancer, Stewart said, although the risks associated with the long-term use of mobile phones had not been fully established.
He said there little risk from drinking coffee, using deodorants, drinking fluoridated water and having breast implants or dental fillings.
Stewart's research was published in the latest edition of the Mutation Research Reviews journal to mark world cancer day on Monday.
(Reporting by James Grubel; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
