Indeed, of thirteen epidemiological studies published since 1999 on cellphone use for more than ten years, eight suggest a two- to threefold risk increase.
Just the same, it’s hard to publish convincing results from studies like these. For one thing, cellphones have only been popular for a decade or so, making it difficult to find enough subjects who’ve used them for long periods of time. Add to this the fact that brain tumours are rare, and it becomes almost impossible to produce data that show definitive statistics. Of the eight epidemiological studies that suggest a positive association, for instance, only three are large enough to be considered “statistically significant.”
One way to circumvent these problems and acquire enough reliable data is to pool results from multiple trials. This is the idea behind Interphone, the largest study of its kind to date, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyons, France. Led by Canadian scientist Elisabeth Cardis, the project has analyzed some 6,400 tumours in thirteen countries. Here, too, however, mystery abounds. While results from some of the individual countries have been published, the pooled results — scheduled for release in 2006 — have not; Cardis says, “The interpretation isn’t clear.” In the January/ February issue of Microwave News, editor Louis Slesin writes, “The code of silence about Interphone must end. Public health demands it.”
Early this year, Siegal Sadetzki, a scientist at the Chaim Sheba Medical Center in Israel, and a participant in the Interphone study, published her country’s arm of the findings. Their report suggests that heavy cellphone users have a 50 percent increased risk of developing parotid gland tumours near the side of the head against which they hold their phones. “Significant risk is shown, and we should take this into consideration, because this technology is really, really, really prevalent,” she says.
While Sadetzki advocates caution (noting “usually it takes a long time to develop solid cancers; ten years is really only the minimum”), others maintain that a two- or threefold increase actually does not represent a large overall risk. Malignant brain tumours are rare — about one in 14,000 North Americans is diagnosed with one each year — and even a doubling of the risk for individuals who use cellphones for a decade means only about one in 7,000 people. But what about those who use cellphones for thirty years, or kids who start using them when they’re eight? No one knows.
Clearly, epidemiological studies in which scientists monitor the health and cellphone habits of large groups of people over extended periods of time are required. Properly constructed, such studies would solve problems of memory loss, recall bias, and other research-related challenges.
If the debate over whether cellphones are harmful is controversial, how they might be is even more so. Because cellphone radiation can’t knock around electrons enough to cause dna damage or heat tissue, its biological effects are probably due to something heat independent or “non-thermal.” However, no one knows yet how the radiation could do this, and many dispute that it does. Of the approximately 400 laboratory studies that have investigated whether exposure to radio frequency radiation affects dna in cells and/or animals, only about half report any effects.
Leif Salford, chair of neurosurgery at Lund University in Sweden, has repeatedly shown that exposure to two hours of cellphone radiation opens the bloodbrain barrier and causes brain-cell damage in rats. Other studies have shown that radiation affects biological pathways important for metabolism and stress responses. But what does this have to do with cancer? Although cellphone radiation, unlike uranium or plutonium, may not be powerful enough to cause tumours directly, it might, as Jerry Phillips suggests, indirectly lead to cancer by preventing dna repair mechanisms from working properly, and by producing free radicals, highly reactive molecules that can interact with dna in cancer-causing ways.
It may also be that cellphones don’t seed new tumours, but instead promote or accelerate the growth of existing ones. In other words, cellphone radiation could be what is called a “tumour promoter,” which would require less energy than tumour initiation. (Also, as people are already being bombarded by dozens of known environmental carcinogens, something that helps cancers grow is potentially a big problem.) In the first study Phillips conducted for Motorola, he used a chemical to make a tiny tumour and then looked at how radio frequency fields influenced its growth. “It did appear that these fields could affect already initiated tumours,” he says. According to University of Massachusetts Amherst toxicologist Edward Calabrese, animals and cells respond differently and inconsistently to low-level toxic exposures, so varied findings are not surprising. At low levels, he says, the way a body reacts to exposures can be counterintuitive, just as in Phillips’ experiment, where low exposures appeared to cause more damage than higher ones.
Probing these issues requires funding, but outside of the Interphone study interest seems to be flagging. The US government, which didn’t participate in Interphone, has not announced any plans to fund epidemiological studies. The National Toxicology Program has provided $22 million (US) for a series of trials to be performed at the Illinois Institute of Technology, but these animal studies will investigate only whether healthy rats and mice exposed to cellphone radiation develop brain cancer — and they may not, if cellphones are only tumour promoters.
This is certainly not the first time a ubiquitous product has become a potential public health threat, and the big question is, how will it all play out? The cellphone industry could follow in the steps of Big Tobacco and continue to cast doubt on legitimate studies. Or it could adopt the science-minded approach of the automobile industry, which has responded to obvious public health dangers by engineering new technologies — the airbag, for instance — that minimize risk and attract the public’s support.
In this era of Hollywood celebrities weighing in on international affairs, perhaps a media luminary like Larry King will call for long-term epidemiological research on the effects of habitual cellphone use. Or maybe good soldier Daniel Shattuck will discover the truth and broadcast it broadly; maybe he’ll find a less hesitant doctor.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Cellphone Games
Does radio frequency radiation pose a cancer risk? Researchers in the largest study to date won’t say
by Melinda Wenner
illustration by Errol F. Richardson
Published in the September 2008 issue. » BUY ISSUE
Previous page | Next page
GET THE WALRUS NEWSLETTER
LATEST POSTS
Latest Blog Posts 
World Famous in Korea 
South Korea's tangerine-based economy
The Haulout
Q&A: Wall-E and picture book artist Shaun Tan
Four-Colour Words
Two new Canadian graphic novels, reviewed
Web 2.0 Museum
Bored with Web 2.0
Sportstrotter
My wholly accurate NFL playoff predictions
IN THE NEWS:
Memoir
My Life with Tolstoy
The Pevear and Volokhonsky translation of War and Peace was released this month in paperback. Here, David Gilmour recalls his lifelong obsession with the novel...
Upcoming Articles in The Walrus
- March 2008
Lee Henderson on Spore
William Johnson on Stephen Harper
A memoir by Michael Winter
New fiction by David Bergen
Cuban Holiday Hell by Nick Hune-Brown
« ADVERTISEMENT »
« ADVERTISE WITH US »
Comments (10 comments)
Jan: Dear Melinda Wenner,
your article is well written and the facts are correct. I find it a pity that you do not mention other health problems from the effects of the electromagnetic fields used by cell phones. See the figures here: www.ecolog-institut.de , Aktuelles, EMF Handbuch, Kapitel 2, page 12 and 13 of 17. Consistent evidence of nervous system disruption and cell stress at 0,001 and 0,01 W/m2 (intensities even to be found near antenna base stations, not only for cell phones but also dvb-t and tetris). And check the study by Friedman, Seger and others about the ERK cascade found to be activated by cell phone radiaton (non-ionising, non-thermal). Actually that is a working mechanism. Also check the article 'Genetic damage in mobile phone users: some preliminary findings' by Gandhi, to be found on the internet. Actually the only in vivo (!) research; found an increase of DNA damage and micronuclei in blood cells of cell phone users, compared to a control group (!) of non-cell phone users. A growing amount of people is affected, but it still is not recognized that electromagnetic fields interfere with proteins and so with health.
Thank you for the well written and factually correct article.
Jan
August 12, 2008 19:51 EST
Kate: Thanks for the story. Stupid cancer blog featured you as I've not read Walrus before but be assured, I'll be reading it again. August 17, 2008 17:56 EST
leo: "about one in 14,000 North Americans is diagnosed with one each year — and even a doubling of the risk for individuals who use cellphones for a decade means only about one in 7,000 people." One out of 7000 a year... let's say (for the sake of easy calculation) a human being averagely lives 70 years, (it is in fact 78.06 in the US), that means 70/7000=7/700=1/100, making the risk of suffering from a brain tumour during your life 1%, compared to 1/2%, that would be quite an increase and not such a small risk in my opinion. (just as a comparison, fatality rate in car accidents in the US in 1996 was 16.96 on 100.000, much less common than brain tumours. I'm sure you know of several people who died in car crashes.) August 27, 2008 15:33 EST
Dr. Magda Havas: Re: Article by Melinda Wenner on Cellphone Games, The Walrus, September 2008
http://walrusmagazine.com/articles/2008.09-health-cellphone-brain-tumour-melinda-wenner/
Melinda Wenner wrote an accurate account of what is happening with research on cell phones. She identifies the key players and how industry interferes with and tries to discredit reputable scientists. Even a two-fold increase in a rare form of brain tumor after 10 years of cell phone use is considerable given the fact that so many people are using cell phones. Studies to date have been done on adults and we know children are much more sensitive to environmental contaminants and more children are now using cell phones then ever before, even though the industry agreed not to market them to children just a few years ago. In the years to come, we are likely to see a sharp increase in tumor incident rates especially among younger people.
What perhaps was missing in this piece is that people are developing headaches, numbness and tingling sensations in their fingers and face, and difficulty with cognitive functions either when using or being in the presence of cell phones and/or cordless phones. Also, people who live within 400 meters of the antennas are experiencing adverse health symptoms. Studies are showing an increase in cancers and symptoms of what is now being called "electrohypersensitivity" or EHS. The symptoms are similar to rapid ageing with the exception that they are reversible in the early stages with appropriate treatment. As many as 3% of the population are already severely affected and another 35% have moderate symptoms.
Cell phones are the tip of the iceberg.
WiFi, WiMax, wireless routers, cordless phones, smart meters, radio frequency identification tags, broadband over powerlines, and even compact fluorescent lights emit radio frequency radiation and are increasing our ambient exposure levels. Adequate research is missing and the government needs to take responsibility and fund independent scientific studies in this area if it places any value on human and environmental health. This is likely to happen only if we value health above greed and if those in positions of power are principled and can severe the ties of their puppeteers. In the meantime, precaution needs be advocated for the use of cell phones and the siting of cell phone antennas as was done recently by the Toronto Board of Health and the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. September 11, 2008 19:56 EST
Dam Smith: All these types of news are still in doubt. Any way, keep using cellphones. And when it comes to accessories specially of Blackberry, you can go for http://www.fommy.co.uk/blackberry-accessories.htm. All types of Blackberry accessories are available here. October 31, 2008 01:16 EST
Storm: Holidays are just around the corner and I’m curious to know which mobile phones will be in high demand this season. I’ve compiled a list of the top 5 handsets I think will be popular on this year’s wish lists. Let’s seeif your fave made my list. Best is BlackBerry Storm Accessories November 09, 2008 05:27 EST
g1: Google Android G1 Mobile Phone - T Mobile G1 Accessories, HTC G1 Accessories, G1 Case, G1 Chargers, G1 Batteries, G1 covers, G1 Skins, G1 Screen Protectors.
http://www.g1mobilehone.net December 18, 2008 20:14 EST
nike dunk sb:
shore our story:
A insomnia frog
A Joyful party
Bear in eggs
Big alligator
Birds and bear
Carving and desert
Chickens and ducks
Clever crow
Crystal ball's dream
Hungry fox
Mom's birthday
Only one goal
Piglets temper
Small white and black pig
The camel is angry
The old dog
The poor and the rich
Broken dreams
The little princess
December 29, 2008 08:54 EST
nike dunk :
Dust off
your old sneakers
Do you own an
old pair of Nike’s or Adidas shoes? Were you ever into playing sports like
basketball or skateboarding, or into Hip Hop music? Were you born around 1970?
If you answered yes to all of these questions, then you could already guess what
this is about. Even if the answer was no to the last question, then you’re
still on page because most people these days understand the significance behind
Nike, Adidas, and the Sports and Music industry. And if your not, then you will
now.
They say that it was the Nike Dunk that started it all off. In 1985,
Nike brought out the Nike Dunk. Originally these sneakers meant for the
college community of basketball players. Instead, this style of sports shoes
started the sneaker sub-culture. Although this style of sneaker was designed
to be used during high intensity basketball games, the spotlight quickly turned
to the fashion of wearing them, what they looked like, and which ones you
owned. Twenty years later, Nike has brought the Nike Dunk back on the
courts with all its retro style and performance.
But why stop
with basketball shoes? In 2000, Nike decided to jump into the skateboarding
scene with the new Nike Skateboarding product line.
With Nike SB
has come the Nike Dunk SB. For years, before skateboarding came out from
the underground scene, skateboarders utilized the rugged design of basketball
shoes. Nike decided to capitalize on what Vans and DC shoes had been
monopolizing for years, and take what was already an amazing sneaker, and fit it
into the needs of skateboarders. What the Nike Dunk SB brought in the
way of performance was extra-padded tongue and their patented Zoom Air insole.
In the way of style, this sneaker has already come out with six series, and
names for them like Grip, Forbes, and Vipers.
Another blast
from the past would be the Nike Air Force 1. These sneakers first came
out in the early 80’s. And like the hip hop culture, their popularity grew.
However, this band did not reach their full fashion peek until 2002 when Nelly
released the song “Air Force Ones”.
The other major
sports shoe brand is the Adicolor Shoes, an Adidas Original. The design
became so popular because the plain white canvas was adaptable by painting,
drawing, and spraying on your own personal design, and even accessories were
sold to help you in your creativity. In 2006 they pushed the envelope further
with a new color series using artists and designers from all over the world.
Another huge sneaker that was popular with the hip hop world was the
Adidas
Superstar. A very raw and controversial Hip Hop group that helped skyrocket
the Adidas Superstar to stardom was Run-D.M.C. This cutting edge group was known
for wearing their Superstars out on stage, and even wrote a song dedicated to
them called “My Adidas”. Whether its Nike or Adidas, clean out that closet,
dust off your old sneakers, and get into the game.
December 29, 2008 08:55 EST
worldofcables: WorldofCables One Stop Store for USB Cables, DVI Cables, Firewire Cables, Monitor Cables, Adapters, PC Cables, Connectors, Audio Video Cables, Gaming Accessories, PDA & Phone Accessories, iPOD Accessories. January 07, 2009 22:40 EST