ANA Discussion Forum
General Category => AN Issues => Topic started by: annamaria on May 10, 2013, 04:14:38 am
-
Int J Epidemiol. 2013 May 8. [Epub ahead of print]
Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: prospective study.
Benson VS, Pirie K, Schüz J, Reeves GK, Beral V, Green J; for the Million Women Study Collaborators.
Source
Cancer Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, UK, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Section of Environment and Radiation, Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Results from some retrospective studies suggest a possible increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma in users of mobile phones.
METHODS:
The relation between mobile phone use and incidence of intracranial central nervous system (CNS) tumours and other cancers was examined in 791 710 middle-aged women in a UK prospective cohort, the Million Women Study. Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Women reported mobile phone use in 1999 to 2005 and again in 2009.
RESULTS:
During 7 years' follow-up, 51 680 incident invasive cancers and 1 261 incident intracranial CNS tumours occurred. Risk among ever vs never users of mobile phones was not increased for all intracranial CNS tumours (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.90-1.14, P = 0.82), for specified CNS tumour types nor for cancer at 18 other specified sites. For long-term users compared with never users, there was no appreciable association for glioma (10+ years: RR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.55-1.10, P = 0.16) or meningioma (10+ years: RR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.66-1.84, P = 0.71). For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03).
CONCLUSIONS:
In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers.
KEYWORDS:
Acoustic neuroma, cellular phone, glioma, meningioma, neoplasms, prospective studies
-
Annamaria ~
Thanks for posting that.
Unfortunately, I doubt it will really be the 'final answer' in the cell phone-AN link debate. I never believed there was a causative relationship between AN development and cell phone use but many people are convinced that ANs and cell phone use must be connected, somehow, and the phone manufacturers are just hiding the evidence, much like cigarette companies managed to hide and lie about the link between cigarette smoking and cancer. However, this study appears to be legitimate and is good evidence against the cell phones-cause-AN argument.
Jim
-
Blaming brain tumors on cell phones makes about as much sense as blaming obesity on McDonalds.
If you compare 1000 obese people who never ate at McDonalds with 1000 obese people who routinely eat at McDonalds, I suspect that you'll find no statistical support for blaming obesity on McDonalds.
;D
-
Obesity is caused by diet cola.
Fact more obese people drink diet cola than non obese people.
Therefor Diet Cola causes Obesity! ;D
People that are better educated, and have better well paid jobs are likely to use a mobile phone more and probably have done so for years.
As their health insurance is better, their education is better, and their financial situation is better they are more likely to seek medical attention sooner, be more proactive in their approach, and be able to pay for the MRI.
There is a weak statistical link between mobile phone use and AN's
The question is why?
My personal view is the weak association between mobile phone use and AN's has to do with the fact that long term, regular mobile phone users are more likely to seek medical attention and therefor mobile phone users will record a slightly higher incidence than the general population.
Blaming AN's on mobile phone use may ultimately prove to be as silly as blaming diet cola on obesity yet, despite the very strong link between diet cola use and obesity.
-
Hmmm just re read the study and it actually says that AN's are linked to mobile phone use!
For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03).
Again I don't feel people should be alarmed at this. If anything I believe it supports the theory that mobile phone users are more likely to seek medical attention for AN symptoms, than non mobile phone users.
If you have a glioma its normally fatal. So it doesn't matter if you use a mobile phone or not you were always going to seek medical attention and become a statistic. If you didn't seek medical attention you died, and you still became a statistic.
So there is not the selection bias with glioma as there is with AN's.
This could explain why there is no link between glioma and mobile phone use, but there is with AN's
You would expect that mobile phone use would increase the likelyhood of most brain tumours not just AN's
-
People that are better educated, and have better well paid jobs are likely to use a mobile phone more and probably have done so for years.
As their health insurance is better, their education is better, and their financial situation is better they are more likely to seek medical attention sooner, be more proactive in their approach, and be able to pay for the MRI.
if i understood well, the specific study was from the UK, where they have national health system. Therefore considerations about health insurance, ability to pay for MRIs etc. would not come into play. This is also true in many other countries, so I would think that this line of thinking, while reasonable, would be applicable to statistics gathered in the US.
Of course in all cases, population who is not very educated or doesn't have good access to medical care may not seek medical attention soon. But even under-developed, poor countries have a very high rate of cell phone use, and sometimes even more so, since land lines are not well-developed and reliable. So there is not necessarily a correlation between wealth/education and cell phone use.
My very simplistic point of view on this would be that pretty much everyone is using a cell phone nowadays, thoughout the world, and has been doing so for about a decade. This would mean that there should be a true epidemic of acoustic tumors etc. Is this the case?
Marianna
-
Marianna ~
Thanks for catching the fact that the study was conducted in Europe where they have, for better or worse, socialized health care.
Frankly, I remain a skeptic regarding cell phone use and acoustic neuroma development. As we all know, statistics can be easily skewed, manipulated and misrepresented in a number of ways, often by omission or simply consciously weighted sampling. So, even when a 'study' finds little difference in AN development between cell phone users and non-cell phone users, I'm not terribly impressed.
Today, cell phone saturation in the U.S. and globally stands at approximately 100%. Meaning that there are over 315 million cell phones in use in the U.S, 7 billion, globally, and that number is rising. Few people today don't have a cell phone, whether they are in Alberta, Atlanta or Austria.
That being the case, as you astutely note, were there a true correlation between the use of a cell phone and the development of an acoustic neuroma we should see an 'epidemic' of acoustic neuroma development here in the U.S. and around the world. We do not. Not even close. The passage of time may change that statistic but I hope not and to be honest, I don't believe it will.
Jim
-
If there is definitively no link why do cell phone companies recommend that you hold the phone 1/2" to 1" away from you body. Also, why did Disney stop marketing phones to kids. In Israel and parts of Europe there are warnings about children using cellphones due to potential radiation issues. I have attached a link to some alternative research. I think that the use of cell phones has increased dramatically over the past 10 years. ANs growvery slowly, so any real impact will only start showing statistical significance in the next generation
http://ehtrust.org/
Cell phones are a valuable tool in our society. Use them safely. Wait until your kids get a bit older before you give them one and use a headset.
The Environmental Health Trust has long been claiming that cell phones cause cancer. Other medical groups have opposite views based on their research. Companies such as Disney are simply being cautious by ceasing the marketing of cell phones to children. If cell phones are ever proven to actually cause any kind of brain tumor (benign or malignant) Disney doesn't want to be responsible. It's called, in the vernacular, 'CYA'.
That ANs grow slowly is a usually true so it's not illogical to assume that due to ubiquitous cell phone use we'll see more ANs sometime in the future, likely on a global basis. The problem with that assumption is that it is unverifiable as is any assumption based on a presumed future occurrence.
I've offered my views and frankly, although I remain a skeptic on the 'cell phones cause cancer' hypothesis I see nothing wrong with being prudent by using a headset and restricting their use by children.
Remember cigarettes never used to cause cancer either.
A point I referenced in my earlier post. Because, for decades, cigarette companies lied about the cancer risks of smoking, many folks now assume that when an accusation is made that something being sold and used by millions is harmful to the user, especially if the C-word is used, they reflexively assume that the merchant - in this case, cell phone companies - are also lying, purposely selling a cancer-causing device to unwitting consumers. I find the analogy to be fatuous. However, I recognize that others do not and truly are convinced that cell phones are a cancer-causing weapon being sold by greedy phone companies for profit, not caring if it's customers die from brain cancer. To each his own.
If anyone is afraid their cell phone will cause brain cancer or an acoustic neuroma, they certainly should either cease all cell phone use, use a Bluetooth device or simply curtail the time they spend talking on a cell phone. Fortunately, Bluetooth devices are becoming inexpensive and omnipresent. Many folks - especially teenagers - chose to 'text' instead of talk on their cell phone and most new cars come with Bluetooth capability, now. That should help cut down on the cancer risk, should one actually exist. Meanwhile, the debate goes on. Popcorn, anyone?
Jim
-
To all,
since my diagnosis 3 years ago and surgery 2 years ago both myself and my husband RELIGIOUSLY use a wired (not BLUETOOTH) headset for the cell phone we use every day [like they do in call centers and people on the phone all day at the office]. The phone is now about 3 feet from my head. Every so often the wire gets tangled up, but that is no issue compared to 2 hrs of radiation a day, 600 hrs a year, 6000 hours in ten years... don't forget what your microwave oven does ... ...
Annamaria
-
Not sure I totally believe cell phone use is benign; however how would you explain those of us that got an An in the opposite ear of phone use? I had a right-side AN and am left -handed and have always put phone up to left ear ,. So not convinced of correlation yet unless the radiation "travels " through head to whichever side it "chooses",, just my two cents worth,, Jane
-
I never used a cell phone much, have a land line at home. BUT - my AN is on the right, and I use the phone on the left. Even if the AN was on the left I'd have trouble implicating the phone.
-
My symptoms showed up long before I had a cell phone. I have always used my left ear for the phone and my AN is on the right. It's human nature to want to be able to place blame for our infirmities on something.
-
To All concerned,
I will tell you a cautionary tale as you know my history from reading it below. 30 years after I had my first brain event, I was diagnosed with an AN this shocked and amazed me and I was wondering what may have triggered my AN diagnosis.......At first I thought it was my cellphone use I had been using the old analog kind on my left ear (the AN ear) for about 10 years, then I realized with all the flap about dental exams and xrays that this might have been an additional causative factor as well!
I wonder how many people have used a cellphone and had dental xrays combined? It may be the product of 2 types of radiation, you think? I have since tailored my dental exams (to exlude xrays (only when I'm in pain) and use the phone on speaker only.
I theorize that we all have to be cautious, for even if it is just an irrational fear, it is better to be safe than sorry down the line, in my book anyway.
PS. Because of my handicap for which I can't use my right hand, I used my left hand only, thus the use of my left ear before having the AN removed.
Mike
-
My symptoms showed up long before I had a cell phone. I have always used my left ear for the phone and my AN is on the right. It's human nature to want to be able to place blame for our infirmities on something.
Excellent observation.
The desire to find a reason for developing something as unreasonable as an acoustic neuroma is natural, which is why I don't vehemently argue against those who blame a cell phone for their AN. Well that and the fact that, as Mike stated, we can't totally rule out cell phones as a 'trigger' for AN growth, possibly combined with X-rays (dental and otherwise). Besides, we all know you can't really prove a negative. So, I remain a staunch skeptic on the subject but allow for the possibility that I may be proven wrong some day, which occasionally happens. ;)
Jim
-
My thinking is this, every year or two an article comes out saying that there is a possible increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma in users of mobile phones. There is so little evidence out there. Usually the media just throws it out there every year or two for no reason. The debate makes little sense to me and to me because I don't see some huge increase. The doctors didn't see an increase and there just doesn't seem to be any evidence. For me, it is irresponsible to keep putting out the possible word. They should either do a real study or leave it alone.
-
Anyone is entitled to their layman opinion, but this thread started with a MEDICAL SCIENTIFIC paper from a reputable institution, NOT A MEDIA ARTICLE. The data was based on a VERY LARGE SET of CASES, hence it has, by necessity, a statistical weight. If you don't trust the medical researchers, who do you trust?
The fact may be in the end that cell phones alone don't cause ANs directly, but for some susceptible gene-impacted individuals, it is a relevant contributing factor. Many similar predicaments can be cited in medicine. For example, running 10 miles is perfectly ok for many people, but if you have three heart veins clogged, run two miles and you may get an heart attack; for this person, running is bad, for others it's ok...
Is this concept so hard to understand?
Did it take 150 or 100 years to understand that smoking causes you lung cancer (which then also spreads to the brain)? Did it take 200 years to understand that strong sun exposure causes skin cancer? Did it take 50 years to understand that fatty foods can cause coronary heart disease? it may take 20 years to understand that radiation causes AN (as people now understand that radiation causes meningioma)...
Annamaria
-
As a follow up, this study looked at 791,710 people for over 7 years. 1,261 cases of brain tumor/cancer developed. The results are based on this large cohort, and so the results have statistical weight/validity...usually studies are much smaller in size and thus have questionable validity...
...take for example the study JUST published, below. The looked at 37 people! The conclusion drawn within the study are of limited statistical validity...
= = = = =
Front Oncol. 2013 May 17;3:121. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2013.00121. Print 2013.
Frameless fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery for vestibular schwannomas: a single-institution experience.
Karam SD, Tai A, Strohl A, Steehler MK, Rashid A, Gagnon G, Harter KW, Jay AK, Collins SP, Kim JH, Jean W.
Source
Department of Radiation Medicine, MedStar Georgetown University Hospital Washington, DC, USA.
Abstract
Objective: To examine tumor control, hearing preservation, and complication rates after frameless fractionated stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) in patients with vestibular schwannomas (VS).
Methods: Thirty-seven patients treated with fractionated SRS from 2002 to 2011 were retrospectively analyzed. Ninety-five percent were treated with 25 Gy in five fractions, targeting a median tumor volume of 1.03 cc (range 0.14-7.60).
Results: With a median follow-up of 4.25 years (range, 15 months-9 years), no tumors required an additional treatment resulting in 100% tumor control rate.
Radiographic control rate was 91% in 32 patients at a median follow-up of 3 years.
Of the 14 patients with serviceable hearing and with audiograms, the hearing preservation rate was 78% at a median follow-up of 18 months.
Twenty-six patients with serviceable hearing pretreatment, were evaluated by a phone survey with a hearing preservation rate of 73% at a 5 year median follow-up.
There were two cases that developed both new increased trigeminal parasthesias and facial spasms but there were no cases of facial weakness. Patient had 96% of good to excellent satisfaction rate with the treatment at a median follow-up of 5 years.
Conclusion: Frameless fractionated SRS treatment of VS results in good rate of tumor control. Hearing preservation rate and rates of cranial nerve toxicity are comparable to what is reported in the literature. Patients choose this modality because of its non-invasive nature and are generally very satisfied with their long term outcome.
-
Mute point. It has been proven in Italy. Can't wait to sue;)
-
Annamaria ~
I appreciate your passion on the cellphone-AN issue but if the study results were as clear-cut as you insist, I think we might have seen it publicized in the mainstream media.
However, just as approximately 50% of the population chose not to smoke before the cigarette-cancer correlation was proven but suspected that smoking was risky to their health, anyone who believes that using a cell phone next to their ear or undergoing any typical type of X-ray is a potential 'trigger' for AN growth should avoid using a cell phone or undergoing X-rays.
Being frustrated when others remain skeptical of something you are convinced is true is certainly understandable but does not generally persuade those who remain unconvinced. In short, we are all entitled to our opinions and while the cell phone-X-ray-AN connection may be obvious to you, it apparently remains less so to others. In time and with more such broad-based studies, that may well change. If so, you'll be able to know that you were there to warn us early on and, perhaps, save some folks AN-related problems.
Jim
-
I'm not sure all the scientists agree with the quality of the science:
Although the risk was elevated for women who used a cell phone for ten or more years (about 60% greater than never users), this effect was not significant. Since this may be the first study to find an association between cell phone use and pituitary cancer, further research on this cancer is necessary.
The women reported their cell phone use in 2005 to 2009 and again in 2009 and were followed through 2011 to see whether they developed tumors. The analyses controlled for other factors associated with tumor risk.
The study had numerous weaknesses which may explain why the research failed to replicate the increased risk of glioma associated with cell phone use of ten or more years found in several previous studies. Although this was a prospective study, the assessment of cell phone use was poor. Cell phone use was measured only at two time points and in a crude manner. The authors considered anyone who used a cell phone at least a minute per week to be a cell phone user. Although the authors measured the amount of cell phone use per week at follow-up, they did not report these results.The study did not assess cordless phone use or other microwave radiation exposures that are similar to cell phone emissions. If the never-cell phone users were cordless phone users, the effect of cell phone use on brain tumor risk would have been underestimated.
http://www.avaate.org/article.php3?id_article=2386
My professional work with surveys and self-assessments of/by students and faculty over the last couple of decades leaves me with little faith in the accuracy of self reported use data. I do a lot of tracking of individuals over a 10 year period of time. Statewide. I'm always hesitant about the level of occurrence of a behavior or characteristic to call it a significant factor. For the study cited, I'm not sure I would be comfortable with the "minute per week" usage as the criterion on which to hang my hat. I would have probably created three levels of usage to determine if there was a difference between the high and low usage categories.
As for the studies with much smaller sample sizes, yep, they are pretty much garbage. Unfortunately, such studies are most common to medical research. So, we'll see if another study of this size can be done with better analytics.
-Tod
-
I think its important to understand the difference between ionizing radiation and non-ionizing radiation.
X-Rays produce ionizing radiation which means that electrons can be stripped from atoms causing them to start chemical reactions.
So X-Rays can cause cell damage, undeniable fact.. Its a matter of how much damage and what are the effects.
Damage = Cancer/Tumour risk
Mobile Phones do not produce any ionizing radiation. There is no direct chemical effect... This is why many think it is safe.
No Chemical reactions are started by electrons being stripped from atoms with mobile phones.
There remains a question if the radiation may affect the cells in different ways, possibly stimulating or suppressing certain cellular level activities, that may have a long term effect. Many feel that there is no effect. If there is an effect its likely to be minor.
The chances of cancer or tumour risk from mobile phones if it exists is very low. If it were higher we would already have the answer.
Just keep in mind that the destruction mechanism in X-Ray radiation is not present in mobile phones
-
Good, informative post Paul. That should settle it once and for all! I love reading posts where I actually learn something!
-
While it is known that ionizing radiation (rays at the x-ray level, such as for dental etc.) does cause issues, an accepted fact, the scientific community has known for a LONG TIME that microwave frequencies (specifically those at 300 MHz to 900 MHz, but also up to 6000 MHz) cause biological issues. For example, people that work in a satellite transmission center are asked to wear on their bodies sensors that emit an alarm should there be stray RF emissions -- these would cause major problems. The problem relates to the well documented “window effect” which medical effects occur at certain frequencies and power densities but not at those immediately above or below them.
A simple-minded dismissals of issues, without proper research is not useful. Some basic on-line research should undertaken by some before arguing for a dismissal...
- - - -
The material below (from the Web -- http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/radiation/health_efx_western.htm) discusses the issues of RF frequencies at the cell telephone range (and even slightly below)
- - - -
We’re all participating in a giant experiment in involuntary epidemiology — irradiated by cell phones and towers, cordless phones, satellites, broadcast antennas, military and aviation radar, TVs, computers, wireless internet, wireless LANs in schools and the workplace, and now these meters, waiting to see what it does to us.
Actually, we know what it does to us, so the results shouldn’t come as any surprise.
The main problem isn’t cancer, although the industry would like you to believe that, because then they can pull out statistics showing how infrequently it occurs as a result of low-level radiation. Cancer takes a long time to develop. Typically, other problems show up first: neurological, reproductive, and cardiac. Problems with severe headaches, sleep disturbances, memory loss, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorder, and infertility show up long before cancer. When cancer does appear, it’s typically brain tumors, leukemia, and lymphoma.
Here are a few things to keep in mind about the health effects of microwave radiation:
1. Effects at low levels can be more noticeable than at higher levels.
The existence of a “window effect” is well documented, in which effects occur at certain frequencies and power densities but not at those immediately above or below them. However, it’s not as simple as just mapping these frequencies and power levels, because the local geomagnetic field and individual susceptibility also influence the result.
Following are a few examples of the nonlinear nature of the effects, from Arthur Firstenberg’s book Microwaving Our Planet (see bottom of page for information). In each case, emphasis has been added:
Firstenberg points out (p. 41) that “calcium ion efflux from brain tissue is extremely sensitive to irradiation with radiofrequency waves.” He cites four studies and a literature review. In particular, a 1986 study by Dutta et al. at 915 MHz and various exposure levels showed that “The effect at 0.0007 mW/g SAR [specific absorption rate] was quadruple the effect at 2.0 mW/g, in other words 3000 times the intensity had 4 times less of an effect under these particular conditions.” Looking at it the other way, an intensity three thousand times lower had an effect four times greater.
Firstenberg describes a number of studies on microwave radiation and blood cells. In one, “Chiang et al. (1989) in their epidemiological study found that white blood cell phagocytosis was stimulated by chronic exposure to the lowest intensities of radio waves and inhibited, sometimes severely, by higher intensities. ... Exposure levels ranged from 0–4 mW/cm2 to 120 mW/cm2.” (p. 22)
In another study on blood, “These results were further refined by a 30-day experiment with guinea pigs at 1, 5, 10, and 50 mW/cm2 (Shandala and Vinogradov 1978). All these intensities increased complement in the blood and stimulated phagocytosis by neutrophils, but 1 mW/cm2 had the biggest effect, and 50 mW/cm2 the smallest effect.” (p. 23)
The September 2000 newsletter of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, No Place To Hide, reported on some studies presented at the June 2000 European Parliament meeting on mobile phones and health. In one presentation, Dr. Lebrecht von Klitzing, of the Medical University of Lubeck, Germany, said, “Some people become ill at power densities of less than 10 nanowatts/cm2. ... Small children are very sensitive to these emitters, down to field densities of 1 nanowatt/cm2.”
Another article in the newsletter says that Dr. Leif Salford, of Lund University, Sweden, “had previously reported that short exposure to microwaves at 915 MHz damages the blood-brain barrier. ... ‘The most remarkable observation in our studies,’ said Salford [at the conference], ‘is the fact that SAR values lower than 1 mW/kg give rise to a more pronounced albumin leakage than higher SAR values. ... The situation that the weakest fields, according to our findings, are the biologically most effective, poses a major problem.’ ”
2. Another effect independent of power level is resonance, which occurs at certain frequency ranges where the wavelength is near the size of a body part. An example is the 900 Mhz range, which has a wavelength of approximately one foot — a size that can cause resonance in a child’s head (because some of the radiation is absorbed, and the wavelength decreases). This intensifies the biological effect. Also, children’s skulls are thinner, so microwaves penetrate more easily. (Another problem is that children’s cells are dividing rapidly, which creates more chance for DNA damage. Their immune systems are not fully developed and can’t defend them against this.)
3. Pulsed radiation, used for some microwave signals, is more harmful at the cellular level than continuous-wave.
4. Studies are typically done for short exposure periods at higher intensities, because running studies longer costs more money. This allows the industry to claim that few studies have been done that show effects for long-term, low-level exposure and that “nonthermal” effects do not exist. But public health scientists point out that duration is also important, and long-term, low-level exposure can have equivalent effects.
5. The effects of radiation are cumulative, in both senses. The meters add to the cumulative radiation as sources proliferate, and microwave radiation is cumulative in sense of increasing the body’s sensitivity over time. Research shows that test subjects don’t always recover completely and that subsequent exposures can cause effects at lower levels.
6. There are no longer any control groups, because we are now exposed to so much radiation. Alasdair Phillips points out the problem in an email to the Roy Beavers list (archived on the Library page at www.wave-guide.org),
Recently an American epidemiologist, Dr Sam Milham, re-analysed Doll’s own data presented in his 1956 (Doll & Hill) paper which showed that heavy smokers were 23.7 times more likely to die from lung cancer than non-smokers. However when you compare the figures for heavy smokers vs light and moderate ones the ORs [odds ratios] fall to 3.5 and 1.9. When you compare light smokers with moderate ones you get an OR of only 1.8.
Applying this concept to microwaves, there are no unexposed and few highly exposed subjects. So experimental results showing harm compared to a control group can be deceptively low — like comparing lung cancer in heavy smokers to light or moderate smokers rather than nonsmokers. This allows the industry to downplay the implications of health effects.
7. Even in full studies, sometimes the abstract and/or conclusion may not accurately reflect the study’s data, especially if the industry was involved or the researcher is concerned about funding.
For example, Kathleen Thurmond, M.D., in a 1999 talk, said,
A study presented by Dr. Ross Adey at the 1996 annual meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society in Victoria, B.C., Canada, showed a decrease in the incidence of brain tumors in rats chronically exposed to digital cellular telephone fields. However, there was no mention in his study of the increased incidence of spinal column tumors found in his research according to a reliable source. It would be standard scientific practice to at least note this finding regarding spinal column tumors. Dr. Ross Adey’s research funding by Motorola has now been terminated.
Dr. Henry Lai was quoted in the London Times as saying, “They are asking me to change my whole interpretation of the findings in a way that would make them more favorable to the mobile phone industry. This is what happened in the tobacco industry. They had data in their hands but when it was not favorable they did not want to disclose it.”
The European Parliament report says, “[A] relatively recent reanalysis of the Lilienfeld report on the Moscow US Embassy irradiation during the ‘cold’ war, based on information that only became fully available following the Freedom of Information Act ... reveals that the original verdict of no serious health effects was, in fact, a sanitised version of Lilienfeld’s findings, in which his statements of concern had been deliberately removed by the State Department.”
-
http://vimeo.com/47917484
http://vimeo.com/48126579
http://vimeo.com/48126577
http://vimeo.com/48187262
-
"A simple-minded dismissals of issues, without proper research is not useful. Some basic on-line research should undertaken by some before arguing for a dismissal..."
Why not just agree to disagree and play nice?
-
Thank you, Teri. I couldn't have said it better.
-
Why not just agree to disagree and play nice?
We're trying - but if the thread becomes too argumentative it can and will be locked.
Let's all be cognizant of the fact that the AN discussion forums are intended to be a patient support resource, not a vehicle for interminable, contentious debating over multifaceted issues (i.e. cell phone risk for AN development) that generate rancor and are never going to be 'settled' here.
Evidence has been presented and opinions stated quite clearly. Let's move on. Thank you.
Jim
-
Okay, then I state my opinion even more simply: I disagree.
-
This isn't "the final answer" on cell phones and the use.
Those of us who have been on the forum for years know this issue has been debated numerous times.
I studied radiation in the dental field and I fully disagree the cell phone alone, could cause the Acoustic Neuroma.
We are all getting radiation on a daily basis just from the atmosphere as well. (it's everywhere if you think about it) It will come up from the earth and expose you.
Yes, I appreciate debates and learning.
We all have a sense of humor on this forum.
-
I have spent quite a bit of time trawling the research papers to see if there is conclusive evidence either way in this argument.
There are scientific papers supporting both sides of the argument.
A whole bunch of scientists of the World Health Organisation got together a couple of years ago to debate this exact topic.
They reviewed the research and medical literature, and spent a few days doing it. They eventually voted on a consensus statement, and their conclusion?
Well there really wasn't one.
What seems to be emerging is.
If mobile phones do cause tumours/cancers the risks are very low.
While we are not 100% sure of the safety of mobile phones, if you wish to reduce the risk you should.
1. Limit your use of your mobile phone
2. Use a wired headset
3. Use a Bluetooth headset as a lower radiation option.
4. Restrict there use to children who are more susceptible to radiation and have a longer lifetime risk.
Some things we should not do.
Buy a radiation shield for our mobile phone.
These have been proven to INCREASE radiation being emitted by the handset.
The phone will always use as much transmitting power as it needs to communicate with the tower.
If you put a shield around it, it increases the transmitting power and actually makes things worse.
I think the good news from all of this is that despite all of the studies, the evidence is far from conclusive.
What we do know, is that the risks of mobile phone usage if there is a risk at all are low.
We cannot definitively say that the they are safe , and we don't have enough evidence to prove that they are dangerous either.
The debate in my view will go on for many years to come. Largely because the risks if they exist are low, and therefor difficult to prove either way
If you are concerned limit your mobile phone use, and use a wired headset.
-
Thanks, Paul.
Your contributions to this thread are appreciated.
I refer to my post #8 (of May 17th) where I suggested doing exactly what you've recommended for those who are concerned with cell phone radiation. We're all willing to discuss the issue but Palace- who has been a contributing member here since 2006, just as I have - is correct when she states the it's been debated ad nauseum on these ANA forums and some of us get weary of the seemingly perpetual contention that cell phone use causes acoustic neuroma development - or might, sometimes, maybe - depending on the 'study'.
As one of three active forum moderators (a fourth is on hiatus) I'm required to read all posts and while the forums are without rancor 99.9% of the time, occasionally a discussion becomes less than cordial and needs to be reined in a bit to retain our usual decorum. No real harm done but we don't permit threads to veer into arguments with all the attendant conflicts they can generate.
In 2013, the AN-cell phone connection is an old debate and frankly, I wish folks could just state their concerns, with or without 'scientific studies', give their opinion and let it go at that without keeping the exchanges churning and emitting far more light than heat. However, we don't wish to stifle cordial discussion, even if the subject doesn't lend itself to neat answers. With that understanding I intend to leave this particular thread and trust that it will not be necessary to lock it (a rare occurrence on this site).
Jim
-
Fair enough Jim.
I will say this. When I became afflicted with my AN, I didn't even know what a cell phone was, never mind owned one. Yes, today I have one but use it as infrequently as I do my AAA card — if and when I breakdown on the road.
Over the years I've seen a great deal of hoaxing in the way of propagating this myth and, if anything, it has biased me against taking it seriously. I believe cell phones to be no more dangerous than the low calorie sweetener Aspartame, which is
another example of scare hoaxing.
These days cell phones are so popular they're part of our culture. If there is truth to the link between cell phones and brain tumors we should be seeing an enormous increase in the incidence of brain tumors of every form, cancerous and noncancerous.
But I do not see this happening.
-
People had AN tumors before cell-phones and it rather speaks for itself. We are all entitled to what we choose to believe. Those of us who have AN tumors now won't benefit how this discussion ends.
I have no relatives or children however we are all concerned about future generations.
We will all be watching the latest scientific data.
-
When it comes to medical applications, there don't seem to be specific guidelines that tell us how much radiation is too much. Further, a definition of "too much" could vary from patient to patient.
For example, the patient who receives accurately targeted radiation therapy to destroy a tumor will get much higher doses than someone who gets a CT scan. That amount of exposure is just right for the cancer patient at that moment, but if a healthy person was exposed to that much radiation in general, it could be too much. At an extreme, medical overdoses are called radiation poisoning or acute radiation syndrome.
A combination of the amount and frequency of exposure, part of the body, and period of time are the factors that help define whether there has been overexposure. So, for example, several dozen mammograms over a lifetime may not be problematic, while a dozen scans in a year could overexpose a patient.
In some cases, "too much" is a result of errors. Those high doses being used for radiation oncology purposes can be harmful if the beam isn't accurately targeted. Patients may be overdosed when radiation testing equipment has not been correctly calibrated, or when a human being makes a mistake inputting dosage settings.