Let’s take a look at what we already know about mobile phones and cancer.
The bigger picture
The main issue is that there is still no strong evidence to suggest that mobile phones pose a cancer risk.
Their use has skyrocketed since the 1980s but during this time, the numbers of people with brain cancer has not changed very much.
Several studies have directly looked at the risk of cancer in mobile phone users, and overall, the evidence from these suggests that mobile phones do not cause any type of cancer, including brain cancers and leukaemia.
The largest study so far, which looked at over 420,000 people, found that even people who had used mobiles for 10 years did not have increased risks.
While some studies have linked mobile phones to cancer, almost all of these have come from a minority of research groups, whose methods have been criticised by other scientists, not least for the practice of publishing the results of the same study in multiple journals. Recently, the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority concluded that “bias and chance are the most likely explanations for their findings.”
A few studies have found that people with brain cancer are more likely to develop the disease on the side of the head that they hold their phone to, even though overall, they found no link between phone use and cancer. That’s a puzzling result and it’s most likely down to chance or inaccuracies. If phones were really increasing the risk of brain cancer on one side of the head, you would still expect to see this danger reflected in the overall result.
The problem is that many of these studies ask people with cancer to remember how they used their phones, often many years ago. Their memories may be biased if they had previously heard about a connection between phones and cancer in the media.
And most importantly, so far no one has been able to consistently agree on how mobile phones could cause cancer, and that’s been a big blow for the argument that they pose a risk. Sure, the phone gives off microwave radiation, but it has millions of times less energy than, say, an X-ray and is not powerful enough to damage our DNA. Nor is the heating effect of this radiation large enough to affect our bodies. Other suggestions have been put forward, but none are backed by consistent evidence.
The bottom line
Recently, a report from the Mobile Telecommunications & Health Research Programme, which looked at all the available evidence, came to the same conclusions. It said that:
- Mobile phones aren’t linked to any negative health effects.
- Short-term mobile phone use does not cause brain cancer, and does not affect brain function.
- There is no evidence that the symptoms experienced by people who suffer from ‘electrical hypersensitivity’ are the result of exposure to mobiles or base stations.
- There is no evidence that mobiles could affect our cells beyond heating them.
- The effects of exposures of 10 years or more is unclear and deserves more research.
The last point is a valid one. Mobile phones are still a young technology. Studies suggest that using them for 10 years or less is safe, but only further research can tell us about longer-term effects.
For the moment, the only health risk that has been conclusively linked to mobile phones is a higher risk of driving accidents. People who use mobile phones while driving, even with a hands-free kit, are easily distracted and are four times more likely to be involved in an accident.
UPDATE: It has come to our attention that our main website mentions precautions that people can take if they are concerned about mobile phones, while this blog post does not. In light of that, here’s what we say over on our main Healthy Living site, for people who want to take action while new research is being carried out.
“Until we get a conclusive answer, the Government recommends that people take precautions. It advises mobile phone users to keep their call times short. And children under the age of 16 should only use mobile phones for essential calls, because their head and nervous systems may still be developing. You can read the Government recommendations in full at the Department of Health website.”
Welcome to the
July 25, 2008 at 3:00 pm |
You don’t mention anything about base stations. I’m pretty sure I know the answer to this already, but is there any hard evidence that living near mobile phone base stations can cause cancer?
July 25, 2008 at 3:10 pm |
Good question Simon. The evidence linking base stations to cancer is even weaker than that linking phones to cancer.
Base stations emit much less electromagnetic radiation than phones do and even if you live close to one, the exposure you would get is usually a hundred times or more below international guidelines (which have themselves been drawn up with very large safety margins in mind).
May 25, 2009 at 11:56 am |
Hi Ed. You say
“The evidence linking base stations to cancer is even weaker than that linking phones to cancer.”
Can you elaborate further on this ‘evidence’? Its certainly news to me.
May I refer you to the contents of a letter recently sent to the WHO:
“To date FOURTEEN epidemiological studies on mobile telecommunication base stations have been published and are referenced either on the EMF WHO database and/or on PUBMED.
Out of these fourteen studies:
· 1 is a mere feasibility study,
· 3 studies (20%) found no increase in the symptoms being analyzed while
· 10 studies (70%) DID find significant increases in the symptoms being analyzed.”
http://www.avaate.org/IMG/pdf/Letter_WHO_Dr_van_Deventer_-_Jan_27_2009.pdf
As I have seen many of these studies, which appear in peer-reviewed journals, I’d be very interested to know what your claim is based on.
Incidentally this evidence was sent to the WHO two years ago. The correspondent, a bio-engineer, indicated he has repeatedly made polite but unsuccessful requests to the WHO for a response. I mention this because in another response (to Eileen O’Connor) you say
“The World Health Organisation says, “Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers.””
They seem to be ignoring all the evidence that there is!
Also, when you refer to a “safety margin” – I really wish you would make it clear that you are ONLY talking about safety from thermal effects. These are (obviously) not relevant to discussions about non-thermal effects. Very few people believe the masts will heat them up, you know :)
Regards
Walter
August 11, 2008 at 12:26 pm |
afternoon all , as someone living with brain cancer i have looked in to this quite a lot. every one is correct in what they say so far. but, what you need to understand is that the majority of all the research undertaken on this subject is paid for pimarily. by the mobile phone company’s. so the “results ” should come as no surprise. i have been aware of my brain tumour for 5 years and have come to the conclusion that despite the fact that where we live is surrounded by base stations and therefore a great amount of mobile phone traffic & an airport , they may simply have acted as a trigger to bring on my tumour.
August 12, 2008 at 9:04 am |
Thanks for chipping in David.
It’s worth noting that while many studies have received funding from the mobile phone industry, the most important studies have taken steps to ensure that their research remains completely independent, and the funds are governed by impartial organisations like the International Union for Cancer Control. For example, the INTERPHONE study lists some of the measures it has taken to ensure independence on its website.
August 18, 2008 at 7:15 pm |
The way that mobile phones could cause cancer is the same way any radiation could cause cancer… electromagnetic energy.
Cancer is the mutation of DNA cells. This can be triggered by breaking the Hydrogen bond which holds DNA in a helix shape. The Hydrogen bond is relatively strong, and so it takes quite a lot of energy to break. It actually takes more energy to break than a mobile can provide… hence there is no firm evidence that phones can cause cancer.
However from Quantum Theory we know that an proven physical effect called Quantum Tunneling can cause something to break through a potential barrier when it doesn’t actually have the energy to break through that barrier. In a sense it borrows the energy (and actually pays it back after breaking the barrier). This way phone radiation with low energy *could* cause cancer, if it is able to tunnel enough.
August 20, 2008 at 12:23 pm |
Hi Merlin. Some high frequency electromagnetic radiation, such as X-rays and some types of ultraviolet light, has enough energy to knock electrons off atoms, and so can damage DNA and other biological molecules. This is known as ‘ionising radiation‘.
Other frequencies are too low-powered to affect atoms in this way – and are referred to as non- ionising radiation. This includes visible light, infrared, microwaves and the radio waves that are given off by mobile phones.
Invoking quantum theory here is a bit of a stretch – if you’re really suggesting that “quantum tunnelling” means that non-ionising radiation from phones “could” cause cancer, then by extension, visible light could too. But clearly it doesn’t or we wouldn’t be here.
August 29, 2008 at 10:10 am |
i am looking for websites to show me that mobile phones can damage brains please help
August 29, 2008 at 11:07 am |
You can find more information about mobile phones on our Healthy Living site and also on the Health Protection Authority’s website.
October 6, 2008 at 10:05 am |
Please go to the Radiation Research Trust website for information on mobile phones, phone masts etc.
Kind Regards
Eileen O’Connor
Trustee – EM Radiation Research Trust
UK registered charity
October 6, 2008 at 10:33 am |
Please also see
http://www.mastsanity.org
Here is the only study on different age groups to date although there is another in the pipieline.
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/heldref/access/887234511.html?dids=887234511:887
234511:887234511:887234511&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT:TG:PAGE&date=Mar+2004&author=
Lennart+Hardell%3BKjell+H+Mild%3BMichael+Carlberg%3BArne+Hallquist&pub=Archi
ves+of+Environmental+Health&edition=&startpage=132&desc=Cellular+and+Cordles
s+Telephone+Use+and+the+Association+with+Brain+Tumors+in+Different+Age+Group
s
Cellular and Cordless Telephone Use and the Association with Brain Tumors in
Different Age Groups
Archives of Environmental Health – Washington
Author: Lennart Hardell; Kjell H Mild; Michael Carlberg; Arne Hallquist
Date: Mar 2004
Start Page: 132
Pages: 6
Text Word Count: 3077
Abstract (Document Summary)
The authors’ case-control study on the possible association between brain
tumors and mobile and cordless telephone use included 1,617 patients and
1,617 controls. A questionnaire was answered by 1,429 (88%) cases and 1,470
(91%) controls.
Use of analog cellular telephones yielded an odds ratio (OR) for brain
tumors of 1.31, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.04-1.64, increasing for
ipsilateral use to OR = 1.65, 95% CI = 1.19-2.30. The authors found the
highest risk for the 20-29-yr age group, with OR = 5.91, 95% CI = 0.63-55
for ipsilateral use of analog phones.
The highest risks were associated with >5-year latency period in the
20-29-yr age group for analog phones (OR = 8.17, 95% CI = 0.94-71), and
cordless phones (OR = 4.30, 95% CI = 1.22-15).
October 6, 2008 at 11:01 am |
Please see further information in addition to my previous email above.
There is a global movement and interest gathering in scientific information mixed with politics and corporate interests. This is why the Radiation Research Trust recently held a two day conference at the Royal Society, London on 8th & 9th September, 2008.
I am a trustee for the UK Charity the Radiation Research Trust. On 8th & 9th September, the Radiation Research Trust (RRT) brought together leading experts in the fields of science, politics and regulation from across the globe to debate the health effects of electromagnetic fields. This was the first time that such a conference was organised to include experts from both sides of the health debate. http://www.radiationresearch.org/conference/
Entitled ‘Electromagnetic fields and health – a global issue’, the conference took place at the Royal Society, and was attended by a number of highly prominent speakers. These included speakers from world establishments such as ICNIRP, WHO, RNCNIRP and national bodies such as the UK Health Protection Agency and the MTHR. They were joined by scientists, politicians, lawyers and concerned citizens, each offering differing viewpoints in order to encourage discussion around risk assessment, precautionary measures, social policy and areas where further research is required.
The conference produced a number of informative presentations on a wide variety of issues related to electromagnetic radiation. Topics covered included the effects of mobile phone base stations, brain tumour studies, studies on electro-sensitivity and electromagnetic fields effects on animals and humans.
Lennart Hardell, Professor of Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden and the Swedish team’s research indicated children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones. Professor Lennart Hardell concluded his presentation saying: “there is a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma & glioma after 10 years ipsilateral mobile phone use. Current standard for exposure to microwaves during mobile phone use is not safe for long term tumour risks and needs to be revised.”
The Hardell team found that use of a mobile phone or cordless phone significantly increases the risk of brain tumours. Their findings also have an internal consistency.
• The higher the cumulative hours of use, the higher the risk;
• The higher the radiated power, the higher the risk;
• The higher the number of years since first use, the higher the risk;
• The higher the exposure (tumour on the same side of the head where the mobile phone
or cordless phone was held), the higher the risk, and;
• The younger the user, the higher the risk
Other studies have identified links between mobile phones and salivary gland tumours, a decline in the fertility of men who use mobile phones heavily and mobile phone usage having significant effects on sleep.
Children are of greatest concern as they are considered to be extremely vulnerable to mobile phone radiation. Their brains, due to skull formation throughout childhood years, absorb a greater proportion of radiation emitted by mobile phones. For example, if the brains of an adult man, a child aged 10 and a child aged five were compared whilst using a mobile phone, you’d see much greater radiation penetration in the youngest child’s brain.
Dr David Carpenter, director of the Institute of Health and Environment at the University of Albany, presented at the Radiation Research Trust Conference and also gave testimony before the subcommittee of the US House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform on 25/9/08. He said: “Precaution is warranted even in the absence of absolutely final evidence concerning the magnitude of the risk” — especially for children.
Many other scientists attending the RRT conference voiced concern for public health especially for children including Professor Yury GRIGORIEV, Chairman of the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russia. Professor Grigoriev gave a powerful presentation with regards to children. He said: “The potential risk to children’s health is very high and a completely new problem. Use of mobile phones for those under 18 or pregnant should be restricted. Children have a unique vulnerability as they grow and develop, there are “windows of susceptibility” periods when their organs and systems may be particularly sensitive to the effect of certain environmental threats. The existing standards cannot guarantee the safe, healthy development of the next generation.”
ICNIRP Chairman, Professor Paolo Vecchia said the current guidelines set by ICNIRP are not mandatory prescriptions for safety, the “last word” on the issue or should not be used as defensive walls for Industry or others.
Sir William Stewart in his excellent opening address at the RRT Conference rightly called for “a much stronger well funded science base with individual organisations and centres being well equipped nationally and for more complementary international programmes to be set in place. Guidelines cannot be secure unless there is a strong encompassing knowledge base upon which to build. Attention has to be given to the existing international guidelines on the NIR and RF in particular”. He also advocated “the urgent need for more work to be carried out in the social sciences and focusing on the individual, the community, the general public and on societal impact.”
Please read the following advice taken from the Department of Health website patient information on mobile phones:
Children should only use mobile phones if absolutely necessary.
Keep your mobile phone away from your body when it is in standby mode.
Mobile phones and hospital equipment
Mobile phones can cause disruption in hospitals. They can disturb patients who are resting and could be confused with alarm bells on medical equipment.
The radio waves that come from mobile phones can also interfere with medical devices, such as monitors.
Go to the following link for more information:
http://cks.library.nhs.uk/patient_information_leaflet/mobile_phone_safety
Irish Senator Mark Daly chaired one of the sessions at the Radiation Research Trust Conference and he reminded the audience that the world had to wait for 50 years for definitive proof on the health effects of smoking. “If many years from now it is proved there is a link (between mobile phones and cancer) the consequences will cost billions of pounds and thousands of lives” he said “we must err on the side of caution.
The UK Radiation Research Trust are calling for the precautionary approach in line with the Chairman for the UK Health Protection Agency, Sir William Stewart. He recommended the use of mobile phones by children should be “discouraged” and “minimised” in 2000 and 2005.
The European Parliament on 4th September called on the Council to amend its 1999 recommendation 519/EC in order to take into account the member states best practices and thus to set stricter exposure limits for all equipment which emits EM waves.
Eileen O’Connor
Trustee – Radiation Research Trust
http://www.radiationresearch.org
An independent Charity Registered
October 11, 2008 at 3:17 pm |
After a major study that was carried out by a scientist in Finland, evidence gave reason to suggest that mobile phone radiation affects the brain (Darius Leszcynski). Professor Leszcynski followed up on the matter for two years. It is true that many scientists are looking into whether the radiowave radiation that we are exposed to can cause serious damage to the brain. Some of the possible effects that have been mentioned are cancer, memory loss and leukemia. Part of the radiowave radiation that is emitted from phones is absorbed by the human head. Dr Zenon Sienkiewicz has also completed much research on this matter to show that using a mobile can damage the body. Dr Sienkiewicz has said that using a mobile phone not only affects the brain but also affects the cells the pass around the body. The mutation of these cells also affects the DNA within them. Dr. Alan Preece believes that, by the results of his studies, mobile phones could damage the body by speeding the brain up.
A report by Tamar Nordenberg suggests that there is no link between cancer and mobile phone radiation. Due to lack of evidence many other scientists believe that there is no clear connection. The report was based on statistics and not actual scientific knowledge therefore the theory is not very trustworthy also this information was found on a cheap website with no real use or value. Other scientists believe that, after a close study, mobile phones are harmless and all the radiowaves absorbed by the cranium are harmless. They came to this conclusion after a number of people who have used a mobile phone regularly for over five years or longer where examined along with another group of people who did not a mobile phone regularly. On average there was no difference in the DNA or cranium.
October 11, 2008 at 3:18 pm |
So what to believe…?
ED you are I believe.
October 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm |
Right that is…
November 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm |
Sue/Eileen
Regarding mobile phones and cancer, we recognise that there are problems with existing research on both sides of the debate. As you mention, there are controversies regarding the Danish cohort study and the INTERPHONE analyses and we have merely picked these as examples of the research around mobile phones and cancer, rather than relying on them as our sole sources of evidence. Considering all the available evidence, the majority of studies so far have failed to show that mobile phone use significantly increases the risk of cancer.
In your comments , you specifically refer to the work of Lennart Hardell’s team as evidence that mobile phones pose a cancer risk. We are aware of this research, but it too has its flaws. In the past, it has been criticised for weaknesses with its methods, publication of the same data-sets in multiple papers and interpreting non-significant results as positive evidence. I would recommend reading the review by the Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, which critically analyses the group’s work in greater detail.
You say that children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones. This claim is based on a case-control study published by the Hardell group in 2004, where they reported that analogue phones increase the risk of brain tumours on the same side of the head in the 20-29-year age group by 5.91 times. Aside from the fact that analogue mobile phones are no longer used in the UK, the confidence interval for this result was 0.63 to 55, which means that it is not statistically significant. This is a really important point. Epidemiologists test for statistical significance so that they can rule out, or at least account for, the possibility that their results are simply down to chance factors. In this case, the fact that the lower boundary is less than one and that the higher boundary is so large suggests the result may not be a genuine reflection of increased risk.
You also note that some studies have shown that people have a higher risk of cancer on the side of the head that they hold their phone to. However, most of these studies have found no overall increased risk of cancer. If mobile phones are truly affecting the location of brain tumours, you would still expect to see this increased risk reflected in the overall analysis. And equally, many studies have not found any “side-of-head” effects. This effect is most likely due to recall bias, where cancer patients inaccurately remember their past exposures. Case-control studies are prone to this problem, and those concerning mobile phones may be particularly vulnerable, since people are likely to have heard about the possible connection with brain cancer in the media.
You also say that the Hardell group’s findings have an “internal consistency”, with higher risks for higher cumulative hours or use, number of years since first use and so on. Scientists refer to such patterns as “dose-response” effects; the greater the exposure, the higher the risk. But that is not what the group have found – they have suggested that specific groups (e.g. those who have spent the most hours on their phones) have higher risks of certain cancers, but they have not shown that the risk increases with exposure in a statistically significant way (this is called a trend analysis). Indeed, one of the major criticisms of the evidence supporting a link between mobile phones and cancer has been that studies have failed to show a dose-response effect.
The group has also split their data into hundreds of different subgroups (e.g. by hours of use, age or type of phone, and so on) and done separate analyses on these. Doing lots of sub-group analyses is a tricky business; if you do enough of them and split your data set down into ever smaller numbers then you will probably find a positive result through chance alone.
All this being said, we are not discounting mobile phones as an issue of interest. You will note that our Healthy Living website mentions the Government’s precautionary stance on mobile phone use among children and links to their documents; we also highlight that there is a lack of research in this age group. We note that mobile phones are still a young technology, that it is still too early to say if they pose a long-term risk, and that more research is needed. But we also note that so far, national incidence trends in brain cancer have not risen in association with the explosive rise in mobile phone use in the 1990s (although it is possible that such trends may only be noticeable after a longer time lag.)
We also note that there is still no firmly established mechanism to explain how mobile phone radiation could affect the risk of cancer. Recently, the only two studies which have suggested that mobile phone radiation could directly damage DNA have been retracted on allegations of research misconduct and fabricated results. It seems that in all areas, this is a controversial field of research!
For our part, Cancer Research UK will continue to focus its efforts on raising awareness of ways of reducing the risk of cancer that are backed by strong and consistent scientific evidence.
January 23, 2009 at 10:27 am |
Children who use mobile phones are five times more likely to develop a type of brain tumour, research has suggested.
The Swedish study indicated that under-16s are more at risk of radiation from mobile phones because their brains and nervous systems are still developing.
Because their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains, it is believed.
After presenting their findings, the scientists said that children under 12 should only use mobiles for emergencies.
They added that teenagers should use hands-free devices and try to restrict themselves to texting.
But other researchers have cast doubt on the findings - saying that mobiles have not been on
the market long enough to test accurately the risks associated with them.
Around 90 per cent of under-16s in Britain have a mobile phone as do 40 per cent of primary school children.
January 23, 2009 at 10:48 am |
We’ve addressed this claim before (see the comment from me two up). To reiterate:
May 10, 2009 at 12:51 pm |
I am a trustee for the UK Radiation Research Trust
The Radiation Research Trust (RRT) are leading supporters of the precautionary approach to Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) and as such advocate release of substantial research funds from Government and mobile phone industry while offering immediate protection and advice to the public.
The UK adopted the guidelines set by the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection ‘ICNIRP’. However, the ICNIRP standard does not offer any form of protection other than from the heating effects of microwave radiation ‘shocks and burns’. In other words ICNIRP only protects your body from properties of high levels of elevated temperatures. A very substantial body of peer reviewed science clearly shows many biological changes have already happened. ICNIRP does not cover long term exposure.
Why I became involved -
I suffered for years with sleep problems, headaches, dizzy spells and vertigo only to be told by my doctors that It was stress or a virus. I eventually developed breast cancer at the age of 38 and discovered that I was living in a cancer cluster.
We now understand that we are not alone, there are many other people living in cancer clusters around phone masts in the UK and throughout the world. I had been living 100m from a phone mast and I now realise the symptoms reported to my doctor are known as a condition called electro sensitivity.
Wireless communication offers a large number of real and practical benefits to society but are the downsides being adequately considered?
In order to address the issues surrounding this debate the Radiation Research Trust organised a major conference on the 8th & 9th September, 2008 entitled:
‘Electromagnetic fields and health – a global issue’
This took place at the Royal Society, London.
The RRT invited speakers from ICNIRP, WHO, the Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection and national bodies such as the UK Health Protection Agency and the MTHR.
They were joined by scientists, politicians, lawyers and concerned citizens, each offering differing viewpoints in order to encourage discussion around risk assessment.
Quote from UK Health Protection Agency Chairman – Sir William Stewart at the RRT Conference, 2008
“Since 2000 there has been a mass of publications, reports, observations, and views purporting at the very least to implicate phones/base stations as a cause of adverse health effects. At a time of uncertainty when more information is required, non-peer reviewed articles should not be ignored. Doing so is ridiculous. They may be right but unproven and/or offer pointers to be thought about and followed up.”
Many scientists presenting at the RRT conference reported children at risk.
Example:
“The potential risk to children’s health is very high and a completely new problem. Use of mobile phones for those under 18 or pregnant should be restricted.
Children have a unique vulnerability as they grow and develop; there are ‘windows of susceptibility’ periods when their organs and systems may be particularly sensitive to the effect of certain environmental threats.
The existing standards cannot guarantee the safe, healthy development of the next generation.”
Professor Yury Grigoriev, Chairman of Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
International advice on children and mobile phones
Toronto’s Department of Public Health advised that children under eight should only use mobiles in emergencies and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.
The Russian Ministry of Health says that young people under 18 should not use the devices.
UK Government Department of Health says children and young people under 16 should only use mobile phones for “essential purposes”.
Israel’s Health Ministry has advised caution.
Recently the French Government and Finnish governmental authority for the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK) recommended restricting the use of mobile phones by children.
Advice from the May 2000 Stewart Report:
People can vary in their susceptibility to environmental hazards. It is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects, and that the gaps in knowledge are sufficient to justify a precautionary approach.
Base stations sited within or near school grounds, should not have a beam of greatest intensity that falls on any part of the school grounds or buildings without agreement from the school and parents.
In 2004 Sir William stated that he believed that the evidence for possible harm has become stronger in the (almost) 5 years since the publication of his original IEGMP Report. He recommended that young people should be encouraged to minimise their use of mobile phones, and that children under 10 years old should not have one.
The UK government netted £22.47bn from the auction of mobile phone licences.
The sector generates over £15bn a year in taxes.
The Government has put around £6 million back into mobile telecommunication research to date. This represents just 0.04% of the tax revenues from a single year of operation – this seems totally disproportionate considering the level of concern for health effects.
Urgent guidance needed to protect public health
The rapid growth rate of mobile phones, phone masts, tetra and wireless communication systems, alongside various reports of possible adverse effects on health, has caused increased concern around the world over the potential effect of electromagnetic pollution on health and the environment.
At present the technology is being increasingly used with almost no precautionary guidance to the public
Is ICNIRP responsible?
Paolo Vecchia, Chairman for ICNIRP presented at the RRT conference in September, 2008.
In his presentation, he made it very clear that:
“the ICNIRP guidelines are neither mandatory prescriptions for safety, the “last word” on the issue nor are they defensive walls for Industry or others.”
This statement makes it clear that the decision to adopt these guidelines into national legislation as “sufficient to protect public health” is political.
The government’s misuse of ICNIRP is the primary issue.
ICNIRP level = 42.5 – 61 V/m depending on frequency range what’s happening in other Counties?
The constitutional court in Brussels recently dismissed the phone companies and government appeals in order to avoid the risk of irreversible damage to the environment and public health. 2009 Decision taken to adopt 3V/m
Liechtenstein – Environmental Protection Law – exposure for standards based on the state of science or experience. Sensitive use where ever people regularly spend lengthy periods of time. e.g. apartments, schools, offices, hospitals & playgrounds. 2008 Decision taken to adopt 0.6 V/m
Salzburg – Inform public on dangers of mobile phone use in information campaign. 2008 Decision taken to adopt 0.06 V/m
Italian Decree Areas where people stay for 4 hours & more. 2003 Decision taken to adopt 6 V/m
Swiss ordinance for Non-Ionising Radiation Protection
places of sensitive use are where ever people regularly spend time. 1999 Decision taken to adopt from 4V/m – 6 V/m
Other reasons for concern:
An international working group of scientists, researchers and public health policy professionals produced the 2007 BioInitiative report. The report provides detailed scientific information on health impacts when people are exposed to electromagnetic radiation hundreds or even thousands of times below the ICNIRP guidelines.
The authors reviewed more than 2000 scientific studies and concluded that the existing public safety limits are inadequate to protect public health. From a public health policy standpoint, new public safety limits, and limits on further deployment of risky technologies are warranted based on the total weight of evidence.
MEPs voted The European Parliament approved the EMF resolution, prepared by MEP Frédérique Ries, on April 2, 2009.
The votes by the MEPs were: 559 for, 22 against and 8 abstentions.
Text to the adopted document available here:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0216+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN
The European Parliament “is greatly concerned at the Bio-Initiative international report which points in its conclusions to the health risks posed by emissions from devices such as mobile telephones, UMTS, WiFi, WiMax and Bluetooth, and also DECT telephones”.
The Reis Report contains some excellent recommendations and we congratulate the 559 MEP’s for voting in support of this resolution and taking this ethical approach to public health.
Medical Doctors are also campaigning for precaution.
A German study by a team of local medical doctors in Naila with data from over 10 years, discovered a threefold increase in new malignancies in people living up to 400m from a mast after five years exposure when compared to people living further away in the same town.
Israel – A small study by GP’s at the Kaplan Medical Centre, Israel, discovered a fourfold increase in cancer within 350m after long term exposure to a phone mast and a TENFOLD increase specifically in women.
Wolf D & Wolf D, 2004, Increase of Cancer near Cell-Phone Transmitter Station, Intanational Journal of Cancer Prevention 1-2, April 2004.
Finland: Helsinki Appeal 2005
http://www.emrpolicy.org/news/headlines/helsinki_appeal_05.pdf
The Helsinki Appeal 2005 from EMF Team Finland calls on the European Parliament to act promptly for the adoption of the new safety standard in the European Union. Physicians and researchers, feel great concern about the Precautionary Principle not being sufficiently applied to electromagnetic fields. They want the standards recommended by ICNIRP to be rejected, because recent scientific studies report various disturbances caused by mobile phone and other RF radiation. They also appeal to the European Community to take prompt measures for solving the refunding of the REFLEX project, which showed evidence of genotoxic effects of mobile phone radiation and should be continued:
http://www.emrpolicy.org/
The Irish Doctors’ Environmental Association believes that a sub-group of the population are particularly sensitive to exposure to different types of electro-magnetic radiation. The safe levels currently advised for exposure to this non-ionising radiation are based solely on its thermal effects. However, it is clear that this radiation also has non-thermal effects, which need to be taken into consideration when setting these safe levels. The electro-sensitivity experienced by some people results in a variety of distressing symptoms which must also be taken into account when setting safe levels for exposure to non-ionising radiation and when planning the siting of masts and transmitters.
Catania Resolution September 13-14, 2002, 16 world leading scientists at the International Conference State of the Research on Electromagnetic Fields, Scientific and Legal Issues, by ISPESL*, the University of Vienna, and the City of Catania, held in Catania (Italy) on September, 2002,
The Freiburger Appeal (2002)
http://www.laleva.cc/environment/freiburger_appeal.html
An important appeal from German doctors and other health professionals, reporting an increase in observed cases of:
Learning, concentration, and behavioural disorders
Headaches, migraines, nervous and connective tissue pains,sleeplessness, daytime sleepiness, chronic exhaustion, extreme fluctuations in blood pressure, hard to influence with medication, heart rhythm disorders, brain-degenerative diseases and epilepsy
Cancerous afflictions: leukaemia, brain tumours.
After carefully-directed inquiry they found a clear temporal and spatial correlation between the appearance of disease and exposure to pulsed high-frequency microwave radiation from mobile phone masts, mobile and DECT phone use.
Furthermore, the Russians, Chinese and many other parts of Europe are rejecting ICNIRP standards and are concerned about the biological effects. The Ministry of Chinese Health revealed that in the last ten years studies on radiation similar to that emitted by the mobile phone industry have shown a majority of results are showing biological effects. Out of 154 studies, 88 or 57% have shown biological effects such as cancer, genetic molecular and cellular changes, electro physiology effects, behaviour changes etc. in a survey by Dr Henry Lai, Washington University, Seattle 2003. It said that the amount of evidence for biological effects and the characteristics of these are so alarming, that all efforts should be dedicated to find a way to minimize these effects.
China held an International Conference September 2005 in order to discuss and establish Asian Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ACNIRP). Research scientists have found that relatively low-level of RF (radio-frequency) radiation can lead to DNA breaks.
Benevento Resolution 2006
http://www.icems.eu/resolution.htm
The International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety (ICEMS) held an international conference entitled “The Precautionary EMF Approach: Rationale, Legislation and Implementation”, hosted by the City of Benevento, Italy, in February 2006. The meeting was dedicated to W. Ross Adey, M.D. (1922-2004). The scientists at the conference endorsed and extended the 2002 Catania Resolution and resolved that, among other things:
More evidence has accumulated suggesting that there are adverse health effects from occupational and public exposures to electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields at current exposure levels. What is needed is a comprehensive, independent and transparent examination of the evidence pointing to this emerging, potential public health issue.
Resources for such an assessment are grossly inadequate despite the explosive growth of technologies for wireless communications as well as the huge ongoing investment in power transmission.
Arguments that weak (low intensity) EMF cannot affect biological systems do not represent the current spectrum of scientific opinion.
I strongly encourage Cancer Research to work with doctors and scientists who are calling for precaution in order to protect public health.
Please see details for a workshop to be held in Brazil in May, 2009. Please consider holding a similar event in order to create awareness for members of Cancer Research.
International Workshop on Non-Ionizing Radiation set for May 18-19, 2009 in Brazil
The health effects of electromagnetic fields are of concern among a growing number of scientists, medical doctors and citizens worldwide. Since the mid 1990s, humankind is becoming more reliant and more exposed to manmade EMF from electric power and wireless communications sources as part of daily life.
We would like to announce a workshop, entitled “International Non-Ionizing Radiation and Health Workshop – Brazil “, will be held on Monday 18th May and Tuesday 19th May 2009, at the Ministério Público do RS, Av. Aureliano de Figueredo Pinto 80, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
The workshop will be under the sponsorship of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO), the Brazilian Ministry of Health, and other governmental and non-governmental organizations. International researchers from several countries will deliver invited talks on selected topics. Researchers, public health authorities, as well as authorities representing legislative, executive and judiciary governmental bodies in Brazil, other South American countries, Europe, and the United States, are also invited.
According to the principal organizer, Dr. Alvaro A. de Salles, a professor at the Universidate Federal Du Rio Grande Del Do Sol., in Porto Alegre, Brazil, “This conference presents a unique opportunity for people to hear lectures that form the basis to initiate discussions among Brazilian and foreign scientists and public health authorities on the potential biological and health consequences of exposure to EMF, and to discuss exposure limits to minimize such hazards. We expect that it can result in a more informed public about a highly controversial matter that has enormous health implications for the general public and workers.”
For more information and to apply to attend, see http://www.ufrgs.br/ppgee/rni.htm.
In the words of – Dr Robert O. Becker – twice nominated for the Nobel Prize
“I have no doubt in my mind that at the present time, the greatest polluting element in the earth’s environment is the proliferation of electromagnetic fields. I consider that to be far greater on a global scale, than warming, and the increase in chemical elements in the environment.’’
Yours sincerely,
Mrs Eileen O’Connor
Trustee – EM Radiation Research Trust
May 12, 2009 at 2:06 pm |
In terms of the evidence surrounding mobile phones and cancer, little has changed since in the months since we first wrote this post. As before, studies have failed to find a link between mobile phone use and a variety of different cancers, as well as central nervous system disorders. While a minority of reports, including those linked to in the comment above, have suggested that long-term mobile phone use can increase the risk of brain cancers, these have numerous weaknesses that we have already gone through in earlier comments.
We stress again that only through a balanced overview of all the peer-reviewed research can real effects can be distinguished from chance or non-existent ones. Any policy decisions must rely on such studies, rather than unpublished data or personal opinions, even if they come from doctors or scientists.
The BioInitiative Report, once again raised as a supporting document, highlights some of the dangers in this approach. The report represents a biased view of the current scientific evidence and indeed, one of the report’s stated objectives is “to document the reasons why current public exposure standards for non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation are no longer good enough to protect public health”. It has been criticised in more detail elsewhere, including by the Health Council of the Netherlands.
The comment above is full of arguments from authority, where quotes are presented in lieu of scientific data. For the sake of balance, here are some more quotes from expert bodies:
The World Health Organisation says, “Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers.”
The American Cancer Society says, “In summary, there is now considerable epidemiologic evidence that shows no consistent association between cell phone use and overall risk of brain cancer.”
The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency says, “There is no clear evidence in the existing scientific literature that the use of mobile telephones poses a long-term public health hazard (although the possibility of a small risk cannot be ruled out).”
The Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme (an independent group set up to follow up concerns raised by the 2001 Stewart Report) says, “Reassuringly, no epidemiological association was found between short-term mobile phone use (less than ten years) and cancers of the brain and nervous system… 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.”
We have already acknowledged, both on our website and our blog, that there are still uncertainties in the data and there is most definitely scope for further research on any potential long-term risks. The outcomes of such research must necessarily be weighed and evaluated to see if any existing policies need altering or amending.
Finally, it is worth pointing out once again that various Governments around the world have advocated the precautionary approach for children and this is a stance we support.
May 25, 2009 at 10:17 am |
Hi Ed.
You write “As before, studies have failed to find a link between mobile phone use and a variety of different cancers, as well as central nervous system disorders.”
You link to this paper “Risks for central nervous system diseases among mobile phone subscribers: a Danish retrospective cohort study.”
Just wanted to point out that the paper you link to actually did find CNS effects from mobile use.
It reports that the Standardized Hospitalization ratios (SHRs) “were increased by 10-20% for migraine and vertigo.” in both ordinary and long term mobile usage. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19194493
You will be aware that headaches and dizziness are frequently reported mobile phone complaints.
Regards
Walter
May 11, 2009 at 10:57 pm |
Mrs O’Connor says: “Dr Robert O Becker -twice nominated for the Nobel Prize..”
However, from the Nobel Prize own website:
“According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize. Nomination information older than fifty years is public. At this web site the Nomination Databases for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1901-1951 and for the Nobel Peace Prize, 1901-1955 are now available. Nomination Databases for the other prize categories will follow”
May 12, 2009 at 11:28 am |
I was a little concerned to read this statement in the lead article, which presumably represents the viewpoint of Cancer Research UK.
“There is no evidence that mobiles could affect our cells beyond heating them. ”
Is CRUK not aware of the following effects from lo-level (i.e. nothing to do with heat effects, or ionising radiation either) EM Radiation/mobiles?
1) Damage to DNA and chromosomes
2) Damage to the Blood-brain barrier
3) Reduction in melatonin (See attached file).
4) Oxidative stress
I’m too rushed to post links to the MANY studies supporting these effects. Presumably CR knows about this ‘open secret’ ?
Walter
(Puzzled)
May 18, 2009 at 12:31 pm |
We are indeed aware of these potential mechanisms, and we urge caution in interpreting the results of individual studies conducted on animals and laboratory-grown cells. Overreliance on in vitro or animal studies is especially problematic when, as we’ve discussed, human studies have yet to find a consistent health risk posed by mobile phone radiation.
To address your potential mechanisms in turn:
A very large number of papers have found that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from mobile phones do not damage DNA. Two papers that have found that such fields could break DNA and both are facing a fraud investigation. Last year, a university investigation concluded that the data from both papers had been fabricated and they should be retracted.
It’s noteworthy that a German group, who initially suggested that EMFs from mobile phones affected the blood-brain barrier, later disproved their own finding after they used laboratory-grown cells that more closely mimic the situation in living human brains.
The independent Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation (AGNIR) concluded in their 2004 review: “Most studies in animals have not reported any RF-field-dependent responses on the brain and nervous system, particularly with regard to changes in gene expression and the permeability of the blood-brain barrier: the results of a recent high profile, but methodologically limited, study from Sweden fail to provide convincing evidence of a field-dependent effect on the blood-brain barrier.”
Again, the data are inconsistent. While the melatonin hypothesis has indeed been put forward, various studies have reported results that contradict it.
Out of the four mechanisms you proposed, this is perhaps the most contentious, in that some studies have found that low doses of radiofrequency radiation can lead to oxidative stress. Further research is warranted, but the effects are generally very small and again, we caution against reading too much into changes seen in laboratory conditions, which can often be trivial when considered in the context of actual living bodies. As an example, a Chinese study found that radiofrequency fields increased levels of Hsp70 protein, which could promote the growth of cancer cells. However, the study also found that this higher level of Hsp70 had no effect on the rate at which cells divided.
As AGNIR said, “Other biological changes in cells due to RF exposure, when found, are small, tending to be only just larger than the uncertainty in the precision of the measurement technique used. The implications for human health of any such biological changes can only be conjectured… The biological evidence suggests that RF fields do not cause mutation or initiate or promote tumour formation.”
However, we take your point that the original sentence was perhaps too strongly worded, and we have amended it to, “There is no consistent evidence that mobiles could affect our cells in a harmful way.”
May 23, 2009 at 11:29 am |
Hi Ed
Thank you for amending this statement:
“There is no evidence that mobiles could affect our cells beyond heating them.”
…as it was false and rin my view rather absurd. However, I think your amendment is still misleading:
“There is no consistent evidence that mobiles could affect our cells in a harmful way.”
As you now acknowledge that mobiles do affect cells, I believe you should try not to give the impression that they maybe don’t. It is whether this leads to harmful effects on health that you presumably dispute.
In your article and your response to my post, I’m still a bit concerned that you dismiss the available evidence so easily.
Here’s why I think it matters greatly.
Ignoring mobiles and EMF for the moment, presumably you would not dispute the following statements:
*Oxidative stress kills cells [1,2].
*Oxidative stress arises from free radicals [3].
*Melatonin is a potent scavenger of free radicals and an antioxidant [4].
*DNA damage can lead to cell death [5].
Given that there is evidence of such effects from EMF and mobiles, should your amended statement not read something like this:
“There are many ways in which mobiles COULD kill or adversely affect cells, but at present we dispute them all.” ?
Given the site is a resource for the public, I’d be far happier if you at least referred to the evidence for such effects, rather than write in a way that suggests it doesn’t exist.
Regards
Walter
[1] “the mechanism by which neurons die under conditions of oxidative stress remains largely unknown.”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12639981
[2] “Antioxidants such as glutathione provide protection from oxidative stress, which kills cells through the “uncontrolled reaction of lipids in the cells with oxygen–basically, burning them out,” says Swanson.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051219173902.htm
[3] “Oxidative stress occurs when some molecules (oxidizing agents) take electrons from the others molecules or atoms. The substances that can exist with missing electrons, are called free radicals. Most of these free radicals are oxygen molecules or atoms.” http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/9-25-2001-4824.asp
[4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19383595
[5] “If left unrepaired, oxidative DNA damage can lead to detrimental biological consequences in organisms, including cell death, mutations and transformation of cells to malignant cells”
http://www.cstl.nist.gov/div831/DNATechologies/DNA_Damage_Repair.htm
May 26, 2009 at 5:00 pm |
Studies finding DNA damage from mobiles
Hi Ed. You say
“A very large number of papers have found that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from mobile phones do not damage DNA.”, and then mention two alleged ‘frauds’.
Given that many studies have found indirect DNA damage from mobiles, I’m not sure of the value of these points.
I’d like to mention these two studies that found DNA damage at low levels.
Garaj-Vrhovac 2008. DNA damage at ~6-8 v/m, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18214694.
Naturforsch 1992. MW at 2 v/m suppresses repair of radiation-induced damage.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1388519
These are interesting as such exposure levels are increasingly common, even in the home. Also the suppression of repair of radiation-induced damage is a good example of an indirect mechanism by which low level microwaves can harm DNA .
One more, hot off the presses:
“Electromagnetic fields stress living cells”, Blank and Goodman, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19268550
“While low energy EMF interacts with DNA to induce the stress response, increasing EMF energy in the RF range can lead to breaks in DNA strands.”
The many other studies that found DNA strand breaks – well I’ll leave this to the experts. These from Microwavenews:
• R.J. Aitken et al., “Impact of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation on DNA Integrity in the Male Germline,” International Journal of Andrology, 28, pp.171-179, 2005 (Australia);
• W. Baohong et al., “Studying the Synergistic Damage Effects Induced by 1.8 GHz Radiofrequency Field Radiation (RFR) with Four Chemical Mutagens on Human Lymphocyte DNA Using Comet Assay in Vitro,” Mutation Research, 578, pp.149-157, 2005 (China);
• W. Baohong et al., “Evaluating the Combinative Effects on Human Lymphocyte DNA Damage Induced by Ultraviolet Ray C Plus 1.8 GHz Microwaves Using Comet Assay in Vitro,” Toxicology, 232, pp.311-316, 2007 (China);
• G. Gandhi and Anita, “Genetic Damage in Mobile Phone Users: Some Preliminary Findings,” Indian Journal of Human Genetics, 11, pp.99-104, 2005 (India);
• J. Kim et al., “In Vitro Assessment of Clastogenicity of Mobile-Phone Radiation (835 MHz) Using the Alkaline Comet Assay and Chromosomal Aberration Test,” Environmental Toxicology, 23, pp.319-327, 2008 (Korea).
Many more on microwavenews link: http://www.microwavenews.com/
And more here, http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/rf/phones.asp#dna
As these must be upwards of thirty positive studies linked in total here, the issue of DNA damage from microwaves should not be ignored. As I said above, your amended statement that
“There is no consistent evidence that mobiles could affect our cells in a harmful way.”
needs further work, IMO.
Walter
May 26, 2009 at 5:09 pm |
Hi Ed
Re: Blood-brain barrier studies, you say it is noteworthy that one positive study was later superceded, but again, there are many others.
I was therefore surprised to read this claim you give from AGNIR:
“Most studies in animals have not reported any RF-field-dependent responses on the brain and nervous system.. particularly with regard to changes in…. the permeability of the blood-brain barrier”
I believe this statement regarding the BBB to be incorrect. An online presentation Coghill “RF Radiation Blood Brain Barrier studies 1990-2004” gives the ratio of positive to negative studies (of effects of RF radiation on the BBB) as 9:2. http://anotherburnsidemast.com/Cellphone%20masts%20and%20health.pdf
Likewise in a quick search I found several positive studies, only two negatives though there may have been an additional more recent one.
AGNIR cite “A study from Sweden” presumably referring to Salford et al. But this team has since replicated their results in several studies, with continuous microwaves waves and various pulse frequencies, and found a dose-response.
The Salford team BBB research:
Nittby 2009, GSM-900 effects 7 days after exposure, and dose-response. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19345073
Eberhardt 2008, effects 14 days after exposure, nerve damage after 28 days
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18821198
Nittby et al 2008. Describes effects on BBB as “demonstrated”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18568929
Grafström et al, 2008. Histopathological examinations of rat brains after long-term exposure to GSM-900 mobile phone radiation. (1 year, negative outcome) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18782606
Salford et al, 2003. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones (two hours). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12782486
Persson et al, 1997. CW and MW pulsed at various frequencies. Significant difference all levels.
http://www.feb.se/EMFguru/Research/blood-brain.html .
But the evidence for the microwave-BBB effect dates back much earlier. Richard Frey in 1998. “Second, the blood-brain barrier appears to be involved in headaches, and low intensity microwave energy exposure affects the barrier”. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9441959
Finally what about the fact that Russian studies in the 70s were reported to have established the BBB link? The Daily Express reported in 1999 that “…uncensored documents reveal that Soviet military scientists has successfully used microwaves of the type used by mobile phones to weaken the blood brain barrier. This is meant to protect the brain from harmful substances in the blood.”. The information in the documents are censored now though! Too late, cat-out-of-bag!?
Perhaps your information given on the effects on the BBB simply happened to be gathered at an unfortunate time point.. At any rate, it seems not to be valid nowadays. I’d be interested to know what you think about this.
Regards
Walter
May 26, 2009 at 5:13 pm |
On Melatonin. There is, as you say ‘inconsistent’, evidence on effects of EMF on melatonin levels, but it becomes less inconsistent when long term exposure is considered, according to Professor Ross Reiter and Denis Henshaw.
Russel J. Reiter, PhD, professor of cellular and structural biology, has devoted nearly 30 years to pineal research and has become one of the foremost authorities on melatonin, http://www.uthscsa.edu/mission/spring95/brainmel.html
Reiter and Henshaw stress the difference between short term and long term exposure. They cite eleven studies here which in their words, show evidence of melatonin disruption
“In contrast to the volunteer studies with short-term exposure, there is now a body of studies involving either longer term or chronic magnetic field exposures which taken together show evidence of nocturnal melatonin disruption. These are listed in table 1…Overall, in table 1, eleven studies show evidence of melatonin disruption by power frequency magnetic fields and two by geomagnetic field disturbances. In some cases there is evidence of a dose response effect and disruption for exposures to fields below 0.3/0.4 μT.
[Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukaemia via melatonin disruption?, 2005, http://www.electric-fields.bris.ac.uk/meldisrup.html
The evidence as far as long term effects from power frequency magnetic fields are concerned, seems fairly strong.
There do not appear to be many long term studies of melatonin involving mobiles. Thanks for these four (negative) links, two of which however seem to be short term. With such small numbers in the 3 volunteer studies, it would have been quite difficult to reach 95% statistical significance (only 38, 9, 20 and the last one unspecified, respectively). There have been positive microwave studies too.
The positive EMF studies cited in Reiter and Henshaw are in general larger and of longer duration.
Given also that mobiles expose their users to magnetic fields, it’s surely not safe to dismiss long term effects of mobiles on the levels of the cancer-fighting agent melatonin.
May 26, 2009 at 5:16 pm |
Studies on Oxidative Stress from mobiles
Ed, Having initially denied effects like this, you now say that “Further research is warranted, but the effects are generally very small”.
But aren’t you worried that allegedly “small” (!) short term effects can cause larger long term effects?
You urge caution in interpretation. But you were so “cautious” that you didn’t even mention them!
Below is a list of some of the studies that unequivocally found oxidative stress from mobiles. Let’s look at some to see if this “caution” is justified.
What have we got: mostly rats, and human cells. Human platelets, human nostrils, human nitric oxide levels. Rat brain, rat hearts, rat retina, rat kidneys, rat nasal mucosa, rat endometrium and rat skin.
Ed, Assuming that all those studies must have a purpose, I think there is too much here to be dismissed, especially as these are only short term studies.
Regards
Walter
Oxidative stress from mobiles
1) Mobile EMF leads to oxidative stress in rats as measured by MDA, NO, ADA and reduced SOD and GSH, reversed by Ginko-biloba. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14734207
2) EMF from mobiles myocardial oxidative stress in rats (reversed by CAPE a components of honeybee propolis), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16342473
3) Mobile induced plasma LPO and reduced SOD, GSH-Px.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11516912
4) Mobile reduced DOS-1 in human blood platelets.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16602439
5) Simulated GSM MAST radiation well below ICNIRP limits led to MDA, reduced GSH, SOD in rats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16954120
6) Mobile induced oxidative stress in rat retina. Melatonin vs CAPE, both reversed, Melatonin “won narrowly” on GSH.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16317515
7) EMF from mobile Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), oxidative stress in rat kidneys, CAPE reverses
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16132717
8) Melatonin vs CAPE, mobile damage to rat kidneys, both reversed, Melatonin overall more effective
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16132682
9) Mobile effects on rats kidneys, rats pre-treated with Melatonin were protected.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15950073
10) Nonlinear time window – effects of mobile on human blood platelets with respect to SOD-1 and MDA – after 1,5,7 mins, SOD-1 down, MDA up, but after 3 mins, the reverse.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12474410
11) Mobile radiation-induced increases in nitric oxide levels
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15886623 and
12) Mobile radiation-induced increases in nitric oxide levels
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11192886
13) 900 MHz mobile induced histopathologic changes and oxidative stress in rat endometrium: protection by vitamins E and C, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536493
14) Modification of membrane fluidity in melanin-containing cells by 2.45-GHz pulsed microwaves, via superoxide dismutase. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed
15) Oxidative stress-mediated skin damage in experimental mobile phone model can be prevented by melatonin.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15729859
16) GSM signals affect 53BP1 and gamma-H2AX foci in human lymphocytes, in EHS and healthy people.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16140623
17) 915 MHz microwaves induced responses in lymphocytes, similar to stress response induced by heat shock
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15768430
18) Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/gamma-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18839414
19) Non-thermal activation of the hsp27/p38MAPK stress pathway by mobile phone radiation in human endothelial cells: molecular mechanism for cancer- and blood-brain barrier-related effects http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12076339
20) Mobile phone signals induce apoptosis and inactivation of the multi-chaperone complex in human epidermoid cancer cells, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15754340
21) Rat skin tissue changes, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15941010
22) Koylu 2006, Melatonin modulates 900 Mhz microwave-induced lipid peroxidation changes in rat brain. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/16898263
May 12, 2009 at 3:47 pm |
I am a retired lecturer in Biology from Imperial College London.
There is no doubt that prolonged exposure to mobile phone radiation does cause DNA damage in some cell lines. We cannot expect all cell lines to behave in the same way because of natural biological variability. We are all the products of thousands of genes that interact in countless ways so that each one of us is both physically and biochemically unique. We do not all get the same side effects from taking a medicinal drug and we cannot therefore expect to respond in the same way to electromagnetic insults.
Also, it is not a valid argument to say that because we do not understand the mechanism by which the DNA damage occurs, then it cannot happen. However, if you want a plausible mechanism visit http://tinyurl.com/5ru6e6 . In essence it says that the loss of structurally important calcium ions weakens cell membranes and makes them more inclined to develop temporary pores and leak. When this happens to lysosome membranes, they leak digestive enzymes that then damage the cell’s DNA.
Having said that, most of the severely damaged cells will die naturally, but others may remain as clones of aberrant but benign cells that increase in number with increasing exposure to the radiation. However, we would expect some to be genetically unstable and mutate, with natural selection favoring the more rapidly growing and aggressive ones until we get a full-blown cancer. But even then, the immune system should be able to nip it in the bud; that is until the immune system fails due to old age or is compromised in some way. Consequently, the likelihood of developing mobile phone-related cancer will depend on genotype, duration of exposure and the state of the immune system.
However, the reported effects of living within a few hundred metres of a base station cannot be explained so easily. The low signal strength at this distance demands an exquisitely sensitive mechanism to detect the radiation. Unfortunately (for us) there is such a mechanism. It lies in the magnetically sensitive pigment cryptochrome. The cryptochromes are a family of pigments present in virtually all animals, plants and some bacteria. They are used to sense the presence of light, or the direction of the Earth’s magnetic field in animals that use it for navigation. They also form an integral part of the biological clock that controls their circadian rhythms.
Put very simply, cryptochromes can measure magnetic fields because they absorb light and use its energy to drive an electron between two parts of the molecule to form a pair of magnetic free radicals. The electron then finds its way back, but the process is delayed by any external magnetic field, so that the amount of pigment in the free radical form at any one time is a measure of the field. Much of the cryptochrome is in the eye, where its different orientations in the curve of the retina probably enables migratory animals to “see” the field possibly, as an extra colour superimposed on their fields of vision.
Ritz et al. demonstrated this very clearly, when they showed that robins were able to orient in the geomagnetic field when given light of the wavelengths absorbed by cryptochrome. However, even more significantly, they found that oscillating electromagnetic fields within the range 0.1-10MHz at 0.085 microtesla (about 500 times weaker than the Earth’s steady field) completely disrupted the system and the birds were unable to orient. (Ritz et al. Nature. Vol. 249 13th May 2004). It may be significant that this range of frequencies includes the bit-rates (rates of transmission of individual digital pulses) of many forms of digital wireless communications, including mobile phones, DECT cordless phones and Wifi. It seems likely that these forms of low level radiation may also interfere with the birds’ ability to navigate.
We humans have no natural ability to navigate using the Earth’s magnetic field, and we sense light to synchronise our circadian rhythms using melanopsin. But we still have cryptochromes, much of it concentrated in the pineal gland, where, in conjunction with the suprachiasmatic nucleus, it appears to regulate the biological clock that leads to the rhythmic production of melatonin. Much of the work on the biological clock has been done on mutants of the fruit fly Drosophila, and this too appears to be affected by magnetic fields (see Yoshii et al. 2009 http://tinyurl.com/cx7xaa ). They did not test oscillating fields, but a 300microtesla steady field could alter the rhythm of the clock or even stop it altogether.
The main significance of the biological clock for humans is that it controls our natural circadian rhythms, which enable us to anticipate the coming of dawn and dusk and diverts our body’s resources to meet the demands of the new conditions. Many aspects of metabolism are controlled in this way; for example, during the day they are diverted to physical activity, but at night they are diverted more to the immune system and repair. If the rhythm were to fail or become weakened in amplitude, no process controlled by the clock would ever be able to function with maximum power. In particular, the immune system may never be able to summon the overwhelming power that is sometimes needed to overcome infection or cancer cells before they get out of control.
There is considerable anecdotal evidence for a weakened circadian rhythm in people living close to mobile phone masts, which include tiredness and loss of concentration during the day and poor sleep at night. The disruption of melatonin production during prolonged exposure to power line fields has been reviewed by Henshaw and Reiter (Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 7S86-S97 (2005)) and they argue that the effect on the rhythm may be similar to light.
The notion that weak electromagnetic fields have an effect similar to light is disturbing to say the least. In a paper reviewing the disruption of circadian rhythms in shift workers and others exposed to nighttime illumination Navara and Nelson. (J Pineal Research 2007 (http://tinyurl.com/afgLjr)) report an increased risk of breast and other cancers and a whole range of other health effects including insulin resistance, coronary heart disease, hypertension and myocardial infarction.
This clearly needs further investigation, but on present evidence, people living, and in particular sleeping, near a mobile phone base station may be at far greater risk of developing cancer than someone who just makes the occasional brief mobile phone call.
May 12, 2009 at 10:24 pm |
Yes they do cause cancer.
After I became ill and developed prostate cancer I researched the situation extensively. I discovered many links to cell phones and microwave radiation causing cancer and many other illnesses. What people need to realize is that cell phones emit strong levels of microwave radiation. The health effects of microwave radiation have been known since the second world war when this radiation was used in radar devices. Many of the people working on the radar units were exposed to microwave radiation and developed serious illnesses and much higher rates of cancer. More recent scientific research near to cell phone antennas, has shown considerably higher rates of cancer and other illnesses the closer people lived to the antennas.
When looking at the health harm caused by cell phones, you will get a much better picture if you look at the health effects of microwave radiation, because it has been researched longer than cell phones.
May 25, 2009 at 2:33 pm |
Ed, I have two major concerns about the information on this CRUK page.
1) In attempting to answer/dismiss the concerns about mobile health effects, you are seriously misrepresenting them in your responses about heat, power and energy when the concerns are specifically ‘biological’.
2) You endorse and link almost exclusively to official sources, even when they have glaring omissions, and when they ignore the concerns expressed.
1) Misrepresenting the concerns. You say
“And most importantly, so far no one has been able to suggest how mobile phones could cause cancer, and that’s been a big blow for the argument that they pose a risk.”
This statement is VERY wide of the mark. Many scientists have suggested plausible mechanisms supported by substantial research.
For example, you now acknowledge (in a post further down) the melatonin ‘hypotheses’, and you rather grudgingly accept what you call ‘small effects’ from oxidative stress (free radicals etc, that are linked to cancer). In addition, many papers HAVE reported DNA damage from mechanisms that are unrelated to heat and energy levels.
I would therefore have hoped that CRUK would have been more measured when discussing evidence. What you describe as a “big blow” (i.e. the absence of plausible mechanisms) does not even exist. It is disappointing that you appear to wish to make opponents appear foolish or ignorant rather than put their actual case.
You continue to maintain the misleading stance that the concerns are based on thermal effects related to the level of power. Despite it’s irrelevance to the debate, you hammer away at this straw man:
“Sure, the phone gives off microwave radiation, but it has millions of times less energy than, say, an X-ray and is not powerful enough to damage our DNA. Nor is the heating effect of this radiation large enough to affect our bodies.”
To re-iterate, the concerns are NOT based on energy/heating effects – but on indirect mechanisms like melatonin reduction, oxidative stress and indirect damage to DNA and its repair mechanisms.
2) Sources. Virtually all the sources that you quote are official bodies who, along with their colleagues in the industry, will bear a heavy responsibility should the proliferation of mobiles and radiofrequency devices emerge as the public health disaster that many predict. You would hardly expect them to be independent, or the first to acknowledge the evidence. The WHO, for example, do not even reply to people who point out that they are ignoring all of the peer-review studies report adverse effects from base stations (see post below). The MTHR report that you endorse calls (unbelievably) for research into mobile effects on cells to be discontinued.
Talking of whom, you say
“The bottom line Recently, a report from the Mobile Telecommunications & Health Research Programme which looked at all [sic] the available evidence, came to the same conclusions”
.
All the evidence? I don’t think so. I looked this report up from your link, and there is NOTHING about oxidative stress/free radicals, melatonin, or DNA damage. (Or the blood-brain barrier for that matter.)
It’s not surprising that an industry-based group might wish to duck the important avenues of concern.
However, I would have thought that, rather than unquestioningly promoting this report, Cancer Research UK would be asking why it ignored such a substantial body of evidence that relates mobiles and EMF to these important CANCER-RELATED effects.
Regards
Walter
May 26, 2009 at 11:06 am |
“I would therefore have hoped that CRUK would have been more measured”
There is nothing wrong with Ed’s excellent summary and responses whereas you and one or two others here have, ironically, painted a grossly unmeasured and misleading picture with misrepresentation, exaggeration, unsupported assertion etc.
Here’s another very good overview of the subject by the EC’s SCENIHR committee who have also looked at /all/ the evidence and considered /all/ reasonable concerns and plausible mechanisms.
http://ec.europa.eu/health/opinions2/en/electromagnetic-fields/index.htm