Free Essay

The Controversy About a Possible Relationship Between Mobile Phone Use and Cancer

In: Computers and Technology

Submitted By kakashiryu
Words 12276
Pages 50
The Controversy about a Possible Relationship between Mobile Phone Use and Cancer
Michael Kundi
Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

oBjective: During the last decade, mobile phone use increased to almost 100% prevalence in many countries of the world. Evidence for potential health hazards accumulated in parallel by epidemiologic investigations has raised controversies about the appropriate interpretation and the degree of bias and confounding responsible for reduced or increased risk estimates. data sources: Overall, I identified 33 epidemiologic studies in the peer-reviewed literature, most of which (25) were about brain tumors. Two groups have collected data for ≥ 10 years of mobile phone use: Hardell and colleagues from Sweden and the Interphone group, an international consortium from 13 countries coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. data synthesis: Combined odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) from these studies for glioma, acoustic neuroma, and meningioma were 1.5 (1.2–1.8); 1.3 (0.95–1.9); and 1.1 (0.8–1.4), respectively. conclusions: Methodologic considerations revealed that three important conditions for epidemiologic studies to detect an increased risk are not met: a) no evidence-based exposure metric is available; b) the observed duration of mobile phone use is generally still too low; c) no evidence-based selection of end points among the grossly different types of neoplasias is possible because of lack of etiologic hypotheses. Concerning risk estimates, selection bias, misclassification bias, and effects of the disease on mobile phone use could have reduced estimates, and recall bias may have led to spuriously increased risks. The overall evidence speaks in favor of an increased risk, but its magnitude cannot be assessed at present because of insufficient information on long-term use. key words: acoustic neuroma, brain tumors, causation, epidemiology, glioma, meningioma, mobile phones, risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 117:316–324 (2009). doi:10.1289/ ehp.11902 available via [Online 26 September 2008]

I will first give a brief overview of the results of epidemiologic investigations of mobile phone use and tumors of the head region. I will then address methodologic problems associated with these studies and, by application of the pragmatic approach proposed earlier (Kundi 2006), discuss whether epidemiologic evidence supports a causal interpretation of an association between mobile phone use and brain tumors.

Overview of Epidemiologic Studies
Table 1 presents an overview of results of epidemiologic studies on the association between brain tumors and mobile phone use. Other end points include salivary gland tumors (Hardell et al. 2004; Lönn et al. 2006; Sadetzki et al. 2008), uveal melanoma (Stang et al. 2001), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (Hardell et al. 2005c; Linet et al. 2006), facial nerve tumors (Warren et al. 2003), and testicular cancer (Hardell et al. 2007), but for these diseases the database is insufficient to date. Except for the early cohort study from the United States (Dreyer et al. 1999) that was stopped by the court after 1 year of follow-up and the Danish retrospective cohort study (Johansen et al. 2001; Schüz et al. 2006b), all investigations have been case–control studies. The “Overall results” from 25 epidemiologic studies listed in Table 1 do not demonstrate support for an increased risk. Only a few risk estimates are significantly elevated, and some are even significantly reduced. Risk estimates for longer duration of use are higher, on average, than overall estimates, and estimates for ipsilateral mobile phone use (i.e., use of the mobile phone on the same side where the tumor occurred), where available, tend to be even higher. Implications of these findings are discussed below.

Because of the enormous increase in mobile phone use starting in the mid-1990s and reaching almost 100% prevalence in many countries worldwide by now, concerns have been raised that even small risks for developing chronic diseases such as cancer from mobile phone use may have substantial impact on public health. In fact, never before in history has any device of comparative prevalent use been associated with such high exposure to high-frequency electromagnetic fields (EMFs). (In addition, exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields occurs from battery discharge.) Although from the perspective of the thermal effects paradigm, the rate of energy deposition in tissues of the mobile phone user is below levels considered harmful, there has been debate since the 1930s that tissue heating may not be the only relevant effect elicited by exposure to high-frequency EMFs; thus, there may be a relevant risk that has not been established yet because of the scarcity of exposure conditions that are comparable across a significant proportion of the population. For all the diverse high-frequency exposures occurring in environmental and occupational settings ranging from long-waves [a type of amplitude modulation (AM) broadcasting with carrier frequencies between 153 and 280 kHz] to radar waves, only a few long-term observational studies have been published (for an overview, see Ahlbom et al. 2004; Krewski et al. 2001; Kundi et al. 2004). Similarly scarce are long-term animal studies of low-level exposures

in the pre–mobile phone era. Hence, at the time mobile phones were introduced, there were insufficient data to decide about health risks from low-level exposures, but the prevailing opinion that no relevant health effects occur at exposures below guideline levels led to the expectation that mobile phones are safe. However, the exponential growth of mobile phone use came as a surprise to the industry as well as to scientists involved in EMF risk assessment. Therefore, the existing gaps in knowledge should be addressed in both experimental as well as epidemiologic investigations focusing on exposures occurring in mobile telecommunications. Since the mid-1990s, many epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use have been conducted worldwide, most of them focusing on tumors of the head region. Despite the growing database, the concerns have not been settled and a controversy still exists about possible adverse health effects. Although some may be inclined to attribute the ongoing debate to the enormous economic impact of modern telecommunication during the past decade, this debate also mirrors fundamental difficulties and a permissible range of interpretation under circumstances of insufficient knowledge. Despite this state of affairs, not all arguments that have been put forward in this controversy are valid. In the following sections I will concentrate on epidemiologic findings and their interpretation, although experimental work deserves similar critical appraisal. volume Methodologic Problems
Although a number of established study designs in epidemiology have been successfully applied in thousands of investigations in the past 50 years, perhaps few epidemiologists are fully aware of the conditions necessary
Address correspondence to M. Kundi, Institute of Environmental Health, Medical University of Vienna, Kinderspitalgasse 15, 1095 Vienna, Austria. Telephone: 43 1 4277 64726. Fax: 43 1 4277 9647. E-mail: The author declares he has no competing financial interests. Received 7 July 2008; accepted 26 September 2008.


117 | number 3 | March 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives

Mobile phones and cancer

to detect an existing risk by application of these methodologies. Analytical epidemiology intends to estimate the risk as a function of exposure to an agent by application of one of three classical study types: cross-sectional, case–control, and cohort study designs. Theoretically, all three types are capable of detecting an existing risk under ideal conditions but differ in their sensitivity to the effects of extraneous and confounding factors. For all study designs, it has to be assumed that exposure to the agent can be assessed with a certain sensitivity and specificity. In the case of mobile phone use, the appropriate exposure metric is unknown. Absorption of electromagnetic energy in the body of the user depends on technical features of the phone and the network, as well as on anatomical features and habits of use. At first glance, this situation does not seem to be much different from, for example, an exposure to an air pollutant that also varies in time and space and which internal dose will depend on physiologic conditions. The problem with mobile telephones is much more profound. What aspect of the complex exposure condition described by “mobile phone use” could be responsible for an effect? It is obvious that given a certain indicator of mobile phone use, such as years of regular use, cumulative number of calls, cumulative hours of use, or cumulative absorption of electromagnetic energy in a certain area of the body, there are indefinitely many exposure conditions that are equivalent under the chosen metric and hence induce an equivalence relation in the space of exposure patterns that cannot be assessed as to its suitability with respect to any outcome measure without a sound mechanistic theory. Another essential problem is related to the long induction periods and latencies of tumors in the head and neck region. Mobile phone use that was insignificant before the mid-1990s could not be studied with respect to its influence during induction period because, in almost all users, malignant transformation has likely occurred long before exposure to mobile phones commenced. Although an influence during the initiation phase cannot be ruled out, many researchers have expressed the opinion that if there is an effect at all, it is an effect on tumor promotion or progression (Johansen et al. 2001; Muscat et al. 2000; Stang et al. 2001). If this is actually the case, several scenarios have to be considered. For example, in a summary of acoustic neuroma, Mohyuddin et al. (2003) found that tumor growth is exhibited in 48–70% of patients, stable tumor volumes in 27–50%, and involution in 2–10%. If mobile phone use influences growth rate, this influence could result in either restarting growth in stable tumors, an increase of growth rate in growing tumors, or an inhibition of involution. The net result would be an earlier onset of symptoms and an earlier diagnosis.
Environmental Health Perspectives

If there is an effect of the specified type, the age incidence function in the exposed population would be shifted compared with that of the unexposed population by a fraction of the exposure duration, as long as duration of use is short compared with the natural history of the disease. Given that the age incidence function has a positive slope, this shift is equivalent to an increased incidence in the exposed population for any given age. For simplicity, assume that the duration and effect of exposure is constant across all age groups. Taking the slope for the age incidence function for brain tumors as 0.04 [on the log incidence scale (Wrensch et al. 2002)], the estimated incidence of brain cancer at any given age would be proportional to exp(age × 0.04) in the population as a whole. If the exposed segment of the population has an age incidence function shifted by 2 years, the estimated incidence at any given age among the exposed would be proportional to exp[(age + 2) × 0.04], resulting in an OR of exp(2 × 0.04) = 1.08 for mobile phone use. Note that the result is independent of the exposure prevalence and depends only on the shift of the age incidence function and its slope. Given the lower number of mobile phone users at an older age, the expected ORs from studies with short exposure durations (and hence small shifts in the age incidence function) are too small to be detected with acceptable power. The third fundamental problem is related to the vast diversity of tumor types to be considered. The World Health Organization differentiates about 50 types of brain tumors (Kleihues and Cavenee 2000); there are more than a dozen different histologic salivary gland tumors, and so forth. Furthermore, in recent years molecular histopathology revealed many differences within certain types of tumors. For example, there are at least two clusters of glioblastoma multiforme, the most frequent malignant brain tumor in adults: one expresses loss of heterozygosity on chromosome 17p with mutation of the p53 tumor suppressor gene, and the other cluster is characterized by an amplification of the epidermal growth factor receptor oncogene (Schwartzbaum et al. 2006). Is it possible that all of these diverse types of tumors respond uniformly to mobile phone radiation? We cannot hope to extract sensitive types by epidemiologic investigations because of the small numbers for each distinct type. In summary, the three most important conditions for epidemiology to arrive at a conclusion concerning a potential risk of an agent are as follows: • It must be possible to measure (at least by a surrogate marker) the component of the agent that is related to the risk. • For agents that promote the disease in question, duration of exposure must be a substantial fraction of the history of the disease.

• There must be good a priori reason to select specific types of diseases that are sufficiently homogenous to support the assumption of more or less uniform etiology. None of these preconditions are met in the study of mobile phone use and cancer. As a consequence, even substantially increased risks might go undetected, and evidence will tend to be equivocal.

Do Mobile Phones Cause Brain Tumors?
To assess a possible causal relationship between an agent and cancer, a pragmatic dialog approach has been delineated (Kundi 2006). According to this procedure, epidemiologic evidence must be assessed concerning four aspects: temporal relation, association, environmental, and population equivalence. If there are no valid counter arguments against the evidence for an association, this suffices for a verdict of causation. If epidemiologic evidence is insufficient, other evidence that increases or decreases confidence in a causal relationship could be included to come to a conclusion. Temporal relation. Assessment of temporal relation is not a trivial problem. It is impossible to define the point in time when a brain tumor started. Before a tumor can be diagnosed, which in the case of brain tumors occurs either by coincidence, if it is detected by imaging techniques applied for other reasons, or because of symptoms produced by the growing cell mass, the tumor was present for many years or even decades. For meningioma, average induction periods of about 20–40 years have been calculated in adults, based on observations of patients exposed to ionizing radiation (Umansky et al. 2008). For acoustic neuroma, slow growth, with an average volume doubling time of about 1.7 years, suggests similar induction periods (Mohyuddin et al. 2003). For glioma, case reports (Kranzinger et al. 2001) and long-term follow-up after childhood radiation therapy of tinea capitis (Sadetzki et al. 2005) also suggest induction periods of decades. Considering a temporal relationship between exposure and the diverse steps of brain tumor development, the following four phases may be differentiated: 1) exposure commenced before the first step of malignant transformation; 2) exposure started during the induction phase, which could itself last for several years; 3) onset of exposure occurred during the non invasive growth phase; and 4) exposure started during final (autonomous) growth. In cases 1 and 2, exposure might influence malignant transformation itself and cause de novo occurrence of a brain tumor. In case 3, exposure might influence the fate of the deviating clone and could decrease latency or probability of spontaneous involution and therefore either increase incidence because of a shift of latency or because

• volume 117 | number 3 | March 2009


Table 1. Overview of results [odds ratios or standardized incidence ratios (95% CIs)] from epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and brain tumors. Study Dreyer et al. 1999 Hardell et al. 1999 Hardell et al. 2000 Hardell et al. 2001 Muscat et al. 2000 Inskip et al. 2001 Cohort Case–control 425 Controls Case–control Type Cohort size (no. of cases and controls) 133,423 Hand-held MP 152,138 Portable bag 209 Brain tumor cases Average duration of MP use (years) ~2 ~6 ~3 ~3 Overall results Results for longer duration of MP use Result for ipsilateral MP use — 2.42 (0.97–6.05) 2.62 (1.02–6.71) (multiv) 2.01 (0.92–5.89) 0.86 (0.65–1.35) (overall)

2 Brain tumor deaths — 4 Brain tumor deaths 0.98 (0.69–1.41) > 10 years, 1.20 (0.56–2.59) 0.85 (0.6–1.2) 1.0 (0.7–1.4) 0.8 (0.5–1.2) 0.8 (0.5–1.4) 1.0 (0.8–1.1) 1.0 (0.9–1.1) 1.6 (1.1–2.3) 0.9 (0.5–1.5) 0.68 (0.34–1.38) 1.3 (1.02–1.6) 1.0 (0.8–1.2) 1.0 (0.8–1.2) 1.1 (0.7–1.5) 0.8 (0.6–1.03) 0.9 (0.6–1.1) 3.5 (1.8–6.8) 1.2 (0.7–2.2) 1.0 (0.6–1.7) 1.13 (0.82–1.57) 1.13 (0.86–1.48) 1.13 (0.85–1.50) 0.90 (0.51–1.57) 1.0 (0.6–1.5) 0.83 (0.54–1.28) 1.08 (0.58–2.00) 0.58 (0.37–0.90) 2.6 (1.5–4.3) 1.9 (1.3–2.7) 2.1 (1.4–3.0) 1.7 (0.97–3.0) 1.3 (0.9–1.9) 1.3 (0.9–1.9) 4.2 (1.8–10) 2.0 (1.05–2.8) 1.5 (0.8–2.9) 0.8 (0.5–1.2) 0.8 (0.6–1.0) 0.7 (0.4–1.3) 0.6 (0.5–0.9) 0.9 (0.7–1.2) 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 0.94 (0.78–1.13) 0.98 (0.74–1.29) 0.84 (0.62–1.13) 0.6 (0.4–0.9) 0.8 (0.5–1.1) 0.5 (0.2–1.0) 0.73 (0.43–1.23) 0.78 (0.68–0.91) 0.67 (0.38–1.19) 1.15 (0.65–2.05) 0.92 (0.53–1.59) > 4 years, 1.96 (0.74–5.20) > 4 years, 0.66 (0.28–1.57) > 6.5 years, 0.60 (0.20–1.78) > 5.2 years, 1.05 (0.52–2.11) ≥ 10 years, 0.85 (0.57–1.26) ≥ 4 years, 0.7 (0.3–1.4) ≥ 5 years, 0.6 (0.3–1.4) 0.9 (0.3–2.7) 1.9 (0.6–5.9) ≥ 3 years, 1.2 (0.6–2.3) ≥ 10 years, 0.66 (0.44–0.95) > 2 years, 1.6 (0.9–2.8) 0.6 (0.1–4.5) ≥ 3 years, 1.7 (0.5–5.1) > 10 years, 1.8 (1.1–2.9) — 2.0 (0.5–8.0) > 10 years, 1.0 (0.1–16.0) — — > 10 years, 3.5 (0.7–16.8) — 2.0 (0.2–22.0) > 6 years, 1.17 (0.75–1.81) 1.71 (0.67–4.34) 1.56 (0.92–2.63) ≥ 10 years, 0.22 (0.04–1.11) ≥ 10 years, 1.9 (0.9–4.1) ≥ 10 years, 1.02 (0.32–3.24) 1.64 (0.44–6.12) 0.48 (0.19–1.26) > 10 years, 3.5 (2.0–6.4) 3.6 (1.7–7.5) 2.9 (1.6–5.2) > 10 years, 2.1 (1.1–4.3) 1.5 (0.6–3.9) 1.9 (0.97–3.6) > 10 years, 2.6 (0.9–8) 0.8 (0.1–6.7) 0.3 (0.03–2.2) ≥ 10 years, 0.8 (0.5–1.5) ≥ 5 years, 0.8 (0.6–1.2) ≥ 10 years, 0.9 (0.5–2.0) ≥ 5 years, 0.8 (0.5–1.2) ≥ 10 years, 1.1 (0.7–1.7) 0.7 (0.2–3.5) ≥ 10 years, 1.14 (0.74–1.73) ≥ 10 years, 2.20 (0.94–5.11) 1.09 (0.35–3.37) ≥ 6 years, 0.8 (0.5–1.2) 1.0 (0.6–1.8) 0.5 (0.2–1.5) ≥ 8 years, 0.79 (0.24–2.65) ≥ 10 years, 0.95 (0.74–1.23)

Johansen et al. 2001 Schüz et al. 2006b Auvinen et al. 2002 Muscat et al. 2002 Hardell et al. 2002a

469 Malignant brain tumor cases 422 Controls Case–control 489 Glioma 197 Meningioma 96 Acoustic neuroma 799 Controls Retrospective cohort 420,095 Subscribers Case–control Case–control Case–control 398 Brain tumor cases 1,986 Controls 90 Acoustic neuroma 86 Controls 1,303 Brain tumor cases 611 Meningioma 159 Acoustic neuroma

2001, ~ 3 2006, ~ 8 Analog, ~ 2.5 Digital, ~ 1 ~3 Analog, ~ 7 Digital, ~ 4, Cordless, ~ 6 Analog, ~ 7 Digital, ~ 4 Cordless, ~ 6 Analog, ~ 7 Digital, ~ 4 Cordless, ~ 6 Analog, ~ 7 Digital, ~ 4 Cordless, ~ 5 ~4 ~5 ~5

— — 0.55 (0.50–1.05) 1.8 (1.3–2.5) 1.3 (0.99–1.8) 1.3 (1.01–1.8) — — 1.80 (0.96–3.38) > 6 years 2.29 (0.59–8.93) 1.16 (0.55–2.46) 0.68 (0.58–0.90) 3.9 (1.6–9.5) ≥ 10 years

Hardell et al. 2002ba Christensen et al. 2004 Lönn et al. 2004a Christensen et al. 2005

Case–control Case–control Case–control Case–control

Hardell et al. 2006a Hardell et al. 2005a

Case–control Case–control

1,303 Controls 588 Malignant brain tumor cases 581 Controls 106 Acoustic neuroma 212 Controls 148 Acoustic neuroma 604 Controls 175 Meningioma 81 Glioma I-II 171 Glioma III-IV 822 Controls 317 Malignant brain tumor cases 692 Controls 305 Meningioma 84 Acoustic neuroma

Lönn et al. 2005


692 Controls 371 Glioma 273 Meningioma 674 Controls 678 Acoustic neuroma 3,553 Controls 966 Glioma 1,716 Controls 366 Glioma 381 Meningioma 1,494 Controls 289 Glioma 207 Meningioma 45 Acoustic neuroma 358 Controls 101 Acoustic neuroma 339 Controls 1,521 Glioma 3,301 Controls 97 Acoustic neuroma 194 Controls 96 Glioma 96 Controls 109 Acoustic neuroma 214 Controls 88 Glioma 132 Meningioma 392 Controls 1,209 Meningioma 3,299 Controls

Schoemaker et al. 2005b Hepworth et al. 2006 Schüz et al. 2006a Klaeboe et al. 2007

Case–control Case–control Case–control Case–control

Analog, ~ 10 Digital, ~ 6 Cordless, ~ 6 Analog, ~ 9 Digital, ~ 5 Cordless, ~ 5 Analog, ~ 9 Digital, ~ 5 Cordless, ~ 5 Analog, ~ 9 Digital, ~ 3 Analog, ~ 9 Digital, ~ 3 Analog, ~ 8 Digital, ~ 4 ~5 ~4 ~4

3.1 (1.6–6.2) 2.6 (1.6–4.1) 2.9 (1.8–4.7) 1.6 (0.7–3.9) 1.5 (0.9–2.5) 1.6 (0.97–2.6) 5.1 (1.9–14) 2.9 (1.4–6.1) 2.4 (1.1–5.1) 1.6 (0.8–3.4) ≥ 10 years 1.3 (0.5–3.9) ≥ 10 years 1.8 (1.1–3.1) ≥ 10 years 1.24 (1.02–1.52)

1.2 (0.7–1.2) ≥ 6 years 1.4 (0.7–2.9) 0.7 (0.2–2.5) 0.90 (0.50–1.62) 1.39 (1.01–1.92) ≥ 10 years

Takebayashi et al. 2006 Lahkola et al. 2007c Schlehofer et al. 2007 Hours et al. 2007

Case–control Case–control Case–control Case–control

~4 ~6 ~4

Takebayashi et al. 2008 Lahkola et al. 2008d

Case–control Case–control

~4 5.5

1.22 (0.63–2.37) 0.70 (0.42–1.16) 0.76 (0.65–0.89)

1.24 (0.67–2.29) 1.14 (0.65–2.01) 0.99 (0.57–1.73) ≥ 10 years

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; MP, mobile phone; multiv, multivariate. aData are a subset from Hardell et al. (2002a). bIncludes data from Christensen et al. (2004) and Lönn et al. (2004a). cIncludes data from Lönn et al. (2005), Christensen et al. (2005), Hepworth et al. (2006), and Klaeboe et al. (2007). dIncludes data from Lönn et al. (2005), Christensen et al. (2005), and Klaeboe et al. (2007).



117 | number 3 | March 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives

Mobile phones and cancer

a tumor that would otherwise remain obscure during lifetime manifests itself clinically. In case 4, no contribution of exposure is possible. Unfortunately, little is known about the duration of these phases. Furthermore, there are likely gross differences between tumor types concerning absolute and relative length of these steps during natural history of the disease. Although slowly growing tumors such as most meningioma and schwannoma may have unchanged growth rates during prolonged periods of time, other brain tumors such as glioblastoma show an explosive final growth after possibly long periods of more stable behavior. For radiation-induced tumors, Cahan et al. (1948) proposed to allow at least 5 years for induction periods. As delineated above, for an effect during latent growth to be detected in epidemiologic studies, exposure must have been during a substantial proportion of growth phase. Therefore, for an influence both during the induction phase and on tumor growth rate, at least 5 years must be allowed for latency or duration of exposure, respectively, to fulfill the criterion of temporal relation. Because for virtually all carcinogens, repetitive or prolonged exposures are necessary to bring about an increased cancer incidence, it is necessary to consider not only time since first exposure but also duration of exposure. Number of calls and average duration of calls seem to be too difficult to remember for periods far in the past, but information about periods of regular use is more easily recalled and therefore could be the best choice for exposure determination. (In principle, it may even be validated by network provider data). Years of regular mobile or cordless phone use up to 5 years before diagnosis would possibly be the appropriate exposure meter for most slowly growing tumors. Because such evaluations have not been performed, I instead assessed exposure duration or latency of ≥ 10 years, as available, for Table 1. In these subjects, at least half of the exposure duration falls within an etiologically relevant period. Association. I computed a meta-analytical estimate of the risk for the different brain tumor types based on all independent studies reporting ORs for ≥ 10 years of mobile phone use. Heterogeneity was assessed by chi-square tests. A p-value < 0.05 was considered significant. If studies included the same population, only those without overlap were considered in the meta-analyses. Pooled effects and SEs were derived from the fixed-effect model because no significant heterogeneity was detected. Because basically all investigations used the same study design and the same end point definition, despite some deviations in exposure classification and proneness to misclassification and selection bias, no attempt was made in the meta-analysis to account for these differences. It should, however, be noted that correction for
Environmental Health Perspectives

selection and misclassification bias would lead to higher meta-analytical odds ratios. There is no publication bias in this case because all studies that are planned, ongoing, or completed are known to the scientific community. For glioma, I included three studies (Hardell et al. 2006c; Lahkola et al. 2007; Schüz et al. 2006a) reporting data on 233 exposed cases and 330 exposed controls among 2,792 glioma patients and 6,195 control subjects. I found no heterogeneity across studies, and the combined OR was 1.5 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2–1.8]. For acoustic neuroma, two independent pooled analyses (Hardell et al. 2006b; Schoemaker et al. 2005) gave an overall OR of 1.3 (95% CI, 0.95–1.9), based on 67 exposed cases and 311 exposed controls among 912 and 5,715 cases of acoustic neuroma and controls, respectively. Risk for meningioma from mobile phone use of ≥ 10 years was reported in two individual studies (Hardell et al. 2006b; Schüz et al. 2006a) and one pooled study (Lahkola et al. 2008), with an overall OR of 1.1 (95% CI, 0.8–1.4) evaluated from 116 exposed cases and 320 controls among a total of 2,506 meningioma patients and 6,223 control subjects. Hence, there is an increased risk for all of these end points from mobile phone use that is statistically significant for glioma. In these analyses mobile phone use was assumed to induce the neoplasia. If mobile phone use has an additional or exclusive effect on tumor growth, this analysis is not entirely appropriate because an effect on the growing tumor can only be exerted by exposure on the same side of the head where the tumor is located. Combined estimates for ipsilateral mobile phone use of ≥ 10 years give the ORs: 1.9 (95% CI, 1.4–2.4) for glioma; 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1–2.5) for acoustic neuroma; and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.9–1.9) for meningioma. Hence, there are clear indications of increased risks for all three end points. According to the dialogue approach, association must be assessed whether or not there are valid counterarguments, and especially those based on considerations about the impact of possible biases. Potential biases. As apparent from Table 1, ever (regular) use of a mobile phone rarely revealed increased risks for any type of brain tumor. Except for the Finnish study of Auvinen et al. (2002), only the Swedish group of Hardell and colleagues (e.g., Hardell et al. 2002a) reported significantly elevated estimates of relative risks. Most studies summarized in Table 1 were conducted based on the Interphone protocol (Cardis et al. 2007) that defined regular use as at least one outgoing or incoming call per week for at least 6 months, with ever-regular use starting 1 year before the reference date. Although the reference date was defined as date of diagnosis in cases and the same date of the matched

control, in studies not individually matched (e.g., Hepworth et al. 2006), there are problems in defining the reference date because of the interview lag time. Because of the rapid increase in mobile phone use during and before the study period, the methods applied to compute the reference date for controls could be a source of bias. Information provided in the study reports is insufficient to decide whether adjustments were biased. In some articles (Hepworth et al. 2006; Schoemaker et al. 2005), controls were allocated into categories of interview lag time at random without consideration of age and sex of the cases within these categories, whereas in others (Lönn et al. 2004a), average lag between diagnosis and identification in a matched set was subtracted from date of control identification. The first method introduces bias if distribution of age and sex within categories of lag times differs, and the second method introduces bias if the date of identification differs between cases and controls. To my knowledge, these possible biases have not been considered previously. In the Interphone study (Cardis et al. 2007), data were collected from the end of 2000 through the beginning of 2004, with some differences between countries. During this period, mobile phone penetration rate increased from about 60% to about 90% in the European Union, according to the International Telecommunication Union. Insufficient adjustment for differences in the interview date would result in underestimation of risk. In their studies, Hardell and colleagues disregarded mobile and cordless phone use within the last year before the reference date. Any use of a mobile or cordless phone was counted except when hands-free devices or external car antennas were used. The reference date for controls was set to the date of diagnosis of the matched case. In some reports of pooled data sets (e.g., Hardell et al. 2006c), individual matching was disregarded and controls from different studies were included. Insufficient adjustment of the reference date could have also led to bias in this case. Hardell and colleagues defined the unexposed subjects as those who have not used a mobile or cordless phone for ≥ 1 year before diagnosis (or reference date in controls). The Interphone group disregarded cordless phones in analyses of mobile phone use (and vice versa). Cardis et al. (2007) and Takebayashi et al. (2006) have argued that cordless phone use is associated with much lower exposure to microwaves and therefore cannot be counted in exposure assessments. This view is not correct. Average power levels are not much different between cordless phones (average levels of 10 mW) and mobile phones (median average output power 6–16 mW in urban areas) (Lönn et al. 2004b). Considering the typically longer duration of daily use of cordless

• volume 117 | number 3 | March 2009



phones compared with mobile phones, it is not a rational procedure to exclude them from total exposure (for information on adolescent users, see Söderqvist et al. 2008). The fraction of cordless phone users among cases and controls not using mobile phones ranged from about 22% in the study of Hardell et al. (2006b) to almost 40% in the German Interphone study (Schüz et al. 2006a). If we arbitrarily assign sensitivity of exposure determination from omission of cordless phone use a value of 74% in cases and 78% in controls, assuming 100% specificity (in cases and controls) and an actual exposure prevalence of 54% [according to the data of Hardell et al. (2006b)], a true OR of 1.5 would be reduced to 1.2. Still greater reductions of the OR result if the differences in cordless phone use were actually greater. In the Interphone studies, data acquisition concerning exposure was predominantly done by computer-assisted personal interview (CAPI). In about 95% of glioma cases and controls, exposure assessment was based on CAPI (Cardis et al. 2007). Reports from five Nordic countries (Lahkola et al. 2007) reveal that > 40% of cases were interviewed in the hospital. However, this fraction ranges from almost 100% in Finland to 3% in the United Kingdom. Data acquisition was completely different in the studies of Hardell and colleagues (Hardell et al. 2002a). They sent a questionnaire to home addresses of cases and controls, and upon return, they evaluated the questionnaires for errors, omissions, and discrepancies. If necessary, additional information was sought by telephone interviews blinded to case status. Method of data acquisition could be important in several respects: a) interviews not blinded to case status may introduce a bias from the expectations of the interviewer; b) the interaction between interviewee and interviewer as such can lead to bias (Rosenthal effects); c) answering a questionnaire at home is less demanding (especially considering the conditions after surgery) than personal interviews; d) at home it is possible to check telephone bills or to inspect contracts with network providers to verify data. For these reasons, the questionnaire method seems to be superior to the interview technique. However, there are also advantages of the CAPI method: data can be immediately checked for errors and discrepancies, and the interviewer can explain points that are not clear and may help in recalling inquired items. Validation studies (Berg et al. 2005; Vrijheid et al. 2006a, 2006b) within the Interphone study showed only a moderate correlation between selfreported intensity of mobile phone use and traffic data from network operators, but confirmed usage data as valid proxy for microwave exposure. For the (not very important) recent mobile phone use, self reports seem to

be fairly accurate, but for earlier use, no data on reliability are available. Considering results from Christensen et al. (2005), memory performance is decreased especially in patients with high-grade glioma. Exposure assessment in these patients could be particularly biased if conducted by interviews compared with the questionnaire method. Bias often represents underreporting of mobile phone use, because it is more likely that a patient forgot using a mobile phone once years ago compared with falsely stating mobile phone use. In the Interphone studies, overall participation was 65% for glioma cases, 78% for meningioma, and 82% for acoustic neuroma (Cardis et al. 2007). For controls, participation was 53% but there was large variation across centers, ranging from 35% to 74%. Hardell et al. (2006d), using postal questionnaires, reported participation rates of 88–91% in cases and 84–92% in controls. The participation rate in cases was computed based on eligible cases that received a questionnaire, defined as those with ascertained primary brain tumors alive at the time of identification and whose participation was not denied by their physician. If the definition of eligible cases for the Interphone studies were applied, the participation rate would amount to about 65–85% in the different studies of Hardell and colleagues. In the Interphone studies, on average, 13% (range, 2–44%) of case interviews were performed as proxy interviews. As shown by Vrijheid et al. (2006a) in an Interphone validation study, response bias due to differential selection of groups of the population with higher prevalence of mobile phone use possibly has the highest impact, even outweighing recall bias. Lönn et al. (2005) showed that nonparticipating cases had almost the same proportion of mobile phone users (50% compared with 52% in participants), but nonparticipating controls differed markedly from participants (34% compared with 59%). Effect of this selection bias might be even greater if long-term use is considered. Consequence of selection bias can easily be determined because the biased OR is equal to the product of the true OR and the selection OR (cf. Rothman et al. 2008). Given the nonresponse analysis of Lönn et al. (2005), the selection OR is computed as 0.64 if overall participation rates of the Interphone studies are considered (72% and 53% in cases and controls, respectively). All 46 ORs in the report of Lönn et al. (2005), except one in the overall analysis of glioma and meningioma, were < 1. Assuming the selection OR is 0.75 as computed based on the participation rates for the Lönn study specifically (79% in cases and 70.5% in controls), almost all these ORs would increase above 1 and none would be significantly < 1 (as was the case for 7 of the 46 ORs). For example, the OR for > 10 years volume of mobile phone use for glioma, reported as 0.9, would increase to 1.2. As has been pointed out previously (Kundi 2004; Kundi et al. 2004; Schoemaker et al. 2005), early symptoms of a developing brain tumor may have influenced behavior regarding mobile phone use. In particular, growing acoustic neuroma are frequently associated with hearing problems and tinnitus. Such symptoms may lead to a restriction of use, change of the side of the head the phone is held during calls, and even to discontinuing mobile phone use. Lönn et al. (2004a), in their study of acoustic neuroma, assessed impact of hearing loss and tinnitus 5 years before reference date and reported no differences in risk estimates for patients with and without hearing loss. Whether this is an indication that such symptoms have no impact on mobile phone use and therefore do not bias risk estimates is difficult to assess because no data were reported. As noted by Schoemaker et al. (2005), 59% of regular phone users among controls reported predominantly rightsided use, 33% left-sided use, and 8% use on both sides. The authors argued that if mobile phones cause acoustic neuromas, one might expect a higher proportion of tumors on the right than on the left side of the head among regular phone users. However, this expectation is completely unfounded. In contrast, tumor growth may cause behavioral changes, as indicated by the distribution of mobile phone use in cases, with only 49% right-sided users, 40% left-sided users, and 11% that used the phone on both sides. Although response bias, misclassification bias, and insufficient correction of interview lag time between cases and controls will reduce risk estimates toward or even below unity, some biases could lead to a spuriously increased risk. One particular point has been raised frequently: Increased risk estimates of ipsilateral mobile phone use (Table 1) could be due to recall bias. If mobile phone use affects tumor development and growth, it is important to consider the side of the head to which the phone is held during calls. Cardis et al. (2008) reported that 97–99% of the total electromagnetic energy deposited in the brain is absorbed at the side of the head the phone is held during calls. Because of this asymmetry, an effect at the site of the growing tumor is expected only or primarily for ipsilateral use. There is no objective method to retrospectively assess side of the head the phone has been used. Asking a person about this aspect of use could result in bias. A person may be inclined to suspect mobile phone use as a causal factor and may therefore tend to report using it at the same side as the tumor has occurred. On the other hand, the reverse also may be claimed—that a person wants to dismiss the possibility that using the phone has anything to do with the disease and is therefore falsely


117 | number 3 | March 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives

Mobile phones and cancer

reporting the opposite side of use. Even if a patient does not intentionally distort the answer, recent surgery may cause memory deficiencies leading to recall bias. Hepworth et al. (2006) argued that the reduced risk on the contralateral side indicates such recall bias. However, this risk reduction was due to an artifact of the method applied. Estimate of relative risk for contralateral mobile phone use was based on nonregular and ipsilateral phone users as reference. It follows that whenever the relative risk of ipsilateral phone use is > 1, the relative risk of contralateral use must be < 1 [the expected value of the OR in this case is (πo+πi)/(πo+ψπi), where πo is the proportion in the population of nonusers, πI is the proportion in the population of ipsilateral users, and ψ is the OR for ipsilateral use]. All meta-analytical ORs for ipsilateral mobile phone use are > 1, and those for glioma and acoustic neuroma are statistically significant. If there was no misclassification bias in controls and perfect sensitivity, then a small recall bias in the direction of a preference for reporting mobile phone use at the side of the tumor of about 3% would reduce these enhanced ORs for long-term (≥ 10 years) use to 1. However, considering overall results for ipsilateral use, recall bias must reduce specificity in cases by 30–40% to remove the observed enhanced risk. The specificity that reduces an observed increased OR to 1 is given by [1+(ψ*–1)π]–1, where ψ* is the observed OR and π is the exposure prevalence in the population, given that sensitivity in both cases and controls and specificity in controls are 1 (Rothman et al. 2008). For example, taking the study of Hardell et al. (2005a) with an overall OR for ipsilateral mobile and cordless phone use of approximately 3.0 for acoustic neuroma and a prevalence of about 23% of ipsilateral mobile or cordless phone use, the specificity must be as low as 68% to remove the observed effect. That is, 32% of those not exposed at all or not on the side of the tumor must have falsely stated they have been exposed. In other words, more than half of mobile phone users among cases and none among controls must have given the wrong side of the head for their predominant use to remove the observed increased risk. It should also be noted that the case-only approach of Takebayashi et al. (2008) cannot solve the problem of recall bias. As can be seen in Table 1, several Interphone groups (Christensen et al. 2005; Klaeboe et al. 2007; Lahkola et al. 2007, 2008; Lönn et al. 2005) reported ORs that were significantly < 1, implying a protective effect of mobile phone use for brain tumors. Although there is a remote possibility that mobile phone use may enhance apoptosis or activate DNA repair, such processes will hardly affect tumor development at an advanced stage; thus, this is not a valid explanation for these reduced
Environmental Health Perspectives

risk estimates but rather it suggests systematic bias. Selection bias, as delineated above, could explain some of these results. However, there are likely additional biases that contributed to the overall effect. Let us consider this aspect from the perspective of the ceteris paribus condition (i.e., that cases and controls have essentially the same features in all relevant aspects except exposure) and in particular from the condition of population equivalence (i.e., the condition that both cases and controls stem from populations that are equivalent for all attributes that are relevant for the disease under study). Mobile phone use is not randomly distributed within the population, but usage patterns will be associated with certain attributes such as occupation, sex, socioeconomic status (SES), and age. Some of these attributes can be accounted for by matching or during analysis, but there could be an association with the disease that cannot be removed by these procedures. Exploration of prior symptoms in brain tumor cases often reveals indications of the disease process many years in the past (e.g., epileptic seizures, personality changes, a variety of cognitive and perception problems). Some of these symptoms could reduce the probability that a person chooses to use a mobile phone—or a telephone in general. Such habit changes would have the greatest impact on measures of cumulative duration and intensity of use. If aspects of the disease influence mobile phone use, the ceteris paribus condition is violated from the very beginning. It is evident that this also implies a violation of the condition of temporal relation, because a reversal of cause and effect may occur. These difficulties are related to the generally short duration of mobile phone use. A solution could be inclusion of case history information and formation of distinct subgroups differing in duration of symptoms related to the developing disease. Obviously, influence of symptoms on mobile phone use will predominantly reduce risk estimates, because the odds for mobile phone use in cases will be lowered. Because of the mentioned biases that could operate in case–control studies, one may be inclined to put some weight on the only cohort study (Johansen et al. 2001; Schüz et al. 2006b) presently available. However, this investigation is severely flawed and cannot contribute to risk assessment and was therefore not included in the meta-analysis (see also Hardell et al. 2008). Confounding. Environmental equivalence seems to be sufficient in all investigations and confounding seems an unlikely cause of bias because there are only a few known risk factors for brain tumors that would induce bias if disregarded in the analyses. Therapeutic and, to a lesser degree, diagnostic X rays to the head region increase the risk for several types of brain tumors. In some studies this was considered a possible confounder but without effect

on the risk estimates (e.g., Hardell et al. 2001), indicating that there is no correlation between such irradiation and mobile phone use. Other possible confounders include neuro fibromatosis and tuberous sclerosis, family history of brain tumors, and medical treatment with growth factors, all of which are very rare conditions without reason to assume a relationship with mobile phone use. Age and sex are the most important confounders that have been considered in all studies either by matching or during analysis. SES has also been indicated as a possible confounder and was included in most analyses. However, including SES in the analysis will not remove selection bias that seems to be related to SES in some Interphone investigations (e.g., Hepworth et al. 2006). Assessment. Overall, arguments in favor of or against an association between mobile phone use and brain tumors are not equally strong. There is evidence for selection bias, exposure misclassification from excluding cordless phone use, reversal of cause and effect from neglecting early symptoms of the disease, and short exposure duration. All these factors lead to reduction of the observed risk estimates. The only strong argument against an association is the possible impact of recall bias. There may be underreporting especially of early mobile phone use because of memory deficits after surgery, but most concerns have been raised for a potential distortion in reporting side of the head the phone is held during calls. Handedness correlates not very highly with side of the head the phone is used [concordances of only about 60% have been determined (Hepworth et al. 2006)], and there are no other methods at hand to validate these data. There are, however, some arguments that speak against a decisive influence of recall bias: Most participants of the Interphone and Hardell studies were enrolled during 1997–2003 at a time when mobile phone use was not widely discussed as a potential risk factor for brain tumors. As reported by Hardell et al. (2002a), among 232 brain tumor cases who expressed their views about potential causes of their disease, only two named mobile phones. Lönn (2004) asked 70 brain tumor cases and controls whether they considered mobile phones as a risk factor for brain tumors and found no difference between both groups. Even if patients consider mobile phones a factor contributing to their disease, what would they gain if they gave the wrong side of use? Most people choose to use mobile phones, but do they want to blame themselves for their disease? In several studies, mobile phone use was only one of the different risk factors investigated (e.g., Lönn et al. 2006). Bias from patients’ attribution would likely extend also to these other factors, and spuriously increased risks should have been observed in some of them. Although reporting bias of this type may explain an increased

• volume 117 | number 3 | March 2009



risk for long-term ipsilateral use, it is hardly an explanation for the increased overall risk of ipsilateral use revealed in several investigations (Hardell et al. 2002a, 2005a, 2006a; Hepworth et al. 2006). When considering the discussion above, the conditions for a causal interpretation of the observed association between mobile phone use and brain tumors are not fully met. However, discussion of the potential violation of the conditions of temporal relation as well as population and environmental equivalence revealed that it must in all likelihood have reduced the observed association. Because of the important result on ipsilateral mobile phone use, a spuriously increased risk due to recall bias cannot be completely dismissed. In such a situation, evidence from other sources may increase or decrease confidence in a causal relation between mobile phone use and cancer. Additional evidence. Since the 1930s there has been a scientific controversy about effects of high-frequency EMF other than thermal. Absorption of electromagnetic energy is now well understood and poses no principal difficulty of integration into Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. The rate of absorption of electromagnetic energy in a homogenous volume of biological tissue is proportional to the temperature increase within this volume. Therefore, at high levels of EMF exposure, significant heating occurs that can be dangerous to health. Exposure standards have been issued that limit exposure to thermally safe levels. However, telecommunication and broadcasting applications of high-frequency EMF are not only radiating energy but also information. This is done by modulation of the highfrequency carrier. The modulation frequencies could be of biological significance and evoke nonthermal effects. In addition, the high-frequency signal itself could cause effects at low levels in combination with the simultaneous presence of the earth magnetic field (Chiabrera et al. 2000). In principle, interactions between EMF and matter are subject to two descriptions, classical or quantum electrodynamics. In a living cell, many important processes occur by electron transfer across membrane structures in a well-organized manner, ions cross selective channels, proteins get activated and deactivated by cascades of precisely regulated enzymes—all processes that occur on a quantum scale. Recently, by application of “omics” research (for an overview, see Vanderstraeten and Verschaeve 2008), it has been shown that cells may respond with activation of proteins and genes at nonthermal levels of exposure, a process that was also observed in vivo (Karinen et al. 2008). However, because of the lack of a mechanistic model, these results are uncertain as to their interpretation with respect to relevant long-term health effects. It has long been speculated (Lai and Singh 1997; Phelan et al.

1992) that free radical formation is involved in EMF-induced health effects. Although there is some evidence of formation of free radicals at nonthermal levels of EMF (Simkó et al. 2006), there are many difficulties with this approach. It would be much too simplistic to assume that free radicals are directly produced by the interaction with the EMF. Rather, these radicals are produced by the cell itself as an intermediate step of the response to sensing the field (Friedman et al. 2007). Concerning prior epidemiologic evidence of a relationship between high-frequency EMF other than those used in mobile telecommunication and brain tumors, despite some reports of increased risk (Berg et al. 2006; Grayson 1996; Szmigielski 1996; Thomas et al. 1987), the evidence is inconclusive to date. Results of epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use summarized above indicate an association that is of moderate strength and in the range delineated for passive smoking and lung cancer. There is no meaningful indicator of exposure dose available, but longer latencies are associated with higher risk estimates, and there are indications that risk is higher in rural areas where phones typically radiate at higher intensities (Hardell et al. 2005b). These aspects do increase confidence in a causal relationship. In the case that epidemiology faces problems due to short exposure durations, lifetime animal bioassays gain importance in establishing a carcinogenic risk. Unfortunately, standard procedures cannot be applied for exposure to microwaves from mobile phones. In hundreds of animal carcinogenicity assays, it has been shown that even for DNA reactive agents, exposure during most of the life span of the animals at the maximum tolerated dose is necessary to significantly increase incidence. Such high exposures are impossible for high-frequency EMF because of interference with heating. Hence, it is necessary to apply levels that are much too low for an increased incidence to be expected. Some solutions to this problem have been proposed: a) coexposure or prior exposure to a known carcinogen; b) implantation of tumor cells; and c) use of animal strains with a habitually increased tumor incidence. Because of the unknown mechanism of action, none of these attempts can be evaluated according to their suitability. More than 30 long-term and medium-term animal assays have been published in the past decade, most of which do not comply with basic criteria (Kundi 2003), and there is no suitable model for brain tumors. Application of ethylnitrosourea during gestation results in an increased incidence of brain tumors but increases incidence of many other tumors as well. A further problem is the much smaller size of laboratory rodents, resulting in a completely different exposure pattern at telecommunication frequencies. In contrast to volume humans using a mobile phone with a localized exposure at the side of the head the phone is held, animal exposure is a whole-body exposure. Although devices have been constructed that result in a predominant head irradiation (Adey et al. 2000), pattern and distribution within the brain will still be completely different from human exposures. It is not surprising then that up to now only a few animal experiments have found some indication of an increased cancer risk (e.g., Hruby et al. 2008; Repacholi et al. 1997; Shirai et al. 2007). Interpretation of epidemiologic findings would be much easier if genotoxicity of mobile telecommunication signals could firmly be established. In vitro experiments have brought about diverse results that at present provide only equivocal evidence for genotoxic effects. Additionally, in the case of genotoxicity assays, procedures widely used for assessing environmental and nutritional toxicants may not be ideally suited for the study of EMF. For example, if, as suggested by Lai and Singh (2004), exposure-induced effects imply activation of the Fenton reaction, cells rich in free iron would be responsive while others would not. Hence, overall evidence without considering mechanistic hypotheses is of limited value. Nevertheless, about one quarter of published genotoxicity studies found an effect of lowlevel exposures (Vijayalaxmi and Obe 2004; Vijayalaxmi and Prihoda 2008). Overall, animal and in vitro experiments do not reduce confidence in a causal relationship but do not provide unequivocal support either. The main problem is the lack of a coherent research strategy that unifies strengths of different disciplines to unravel the intriguing problem of low-level EMF health effects from a biophysical perspective.

Epidemiologic evidence compiled in the past 10 years starts to indicate an increased risk, in particular for brain tumors (glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma), from mobile phone use. Considering biases that may have been operating in most studies, the risk estimates are rather too low, although recall bias could have increased risk estimates. The net result, when considering the different errors and their impact, is still rather an elevated risk. The magnitude of the brain tumor risk is moderate, but it has to be borne in mind that estimates are still from short durations of exposure. From the perspective of public health, an increase of brain tumor incidence of ≥ 50% poses substantial problems for neurosurgical care, but the individual perspective is less dramatic: in industrial countries, the lifetime brain tumor risk is 4–8 per 1,000. If mobile phone use should increase these figures to 6–12 per 1,000, the individual risk is still low.


117 | number 3 | March 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives

Mobile phones and cancer

At present, evidence for a causal relationship between mobile phone use and brain tumors relies predominantly on epidemiology, in particular on the large studies of Hardell and colleagues, but there are no valid counter arguments and no strong evidence decreasing confidence in a causal relationship. Weak evidence in favor of a causal relationship is provided by some animal and in vitro studies, but overall, genotoxicity assays, both in vivo and in vitro, are inconclusive to date. RefeRences
Adey W, Byus C, Cain C, Higgins R, Jones R, Kean C, et al. 2000. Spontaneous and nitrosourea-induced primary tumors of the central nervous system in Fischer 344 rats exposed to frequency-modulated microwave fields. Cancer Res 60(7):1857–1863. Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. 2004. Epidemiology of health effects of radiofrequency exposure. Environ Health Perspect 112:1741–1754. Auvinen A, Hietanen M, Luukkonen R, Koskela R. 2002. Brain tumors and salivary gland cancers among cellular telephone users. Epidemiology 13(3):356–359. Berg G, Schüz J, Samkange-Zeeb F, Blettner M. 2005. Assessment of radiofrequency exposure from cellular telephone daily use in an epidemiological study: German validation study of the international case-control study of cancers of the brain—INTERPHONE—study. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 15(3):217–224. Berg G, Spallek J, Schüz J, Schlehofer B, Böhler E, Schlaefer K, et al. 2006. Occupational exposure to radio frequency/microwave radiation and the risk of brain tumors: Interphone Study Group, Germany. Am J Epidemiol 164(6):538–548. Cahan W, Woodard H, Higinbotham N, Stewart F, Coley B. 1948. Sarcoma arising in irradiated bone. Report of eleven cases. Cancer 1:3–29. Cardis E, Deltour I, Mann S, Moissonnier M, Taki M, Varsier N, et al. 2008. Distribution of RF energy emitted by mobile phones in anatomical structures of the brain. Phys Med Biol 53:2771–2783. Cardis E, Richardson L, Deltour I, Armstrong B, Feychting M, Johansen C, et al. 2007. The INTERPHONE study: design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study population. Eur J Epidemiol 22(9):647–664. Chiabrera A, Bianco B, Moggia E, Kaufman J. 2000. ZeemanStark modeling of the RF EMF interaction with ligand binding. Bioelectromagnetics 21:312–324. Christensen H, Schüz J, Kosteljanetz M, Poulsen H, Boice J Jr, McLaughlin J, et al. 2005. Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: a population-based, incident case-control study. Neurology 64(7):1189–1195. Christensen H, Schüz J, Kosteljanetz M, Poulsen H, Thomsen J, Johansen C. 2004. Cellular telephone use and risk of acoustic neuroma. Am J Epidemiol 159(3):277–283. Dreyer N, Loughlin J, Rothman K. 1999. Cause-specific mortality in cellular telephone users. JAMA 282(19):1814–1816. Friedman J, Kraus S, Hauptman Y, Schiff Y, Seger R. 2007. Mechanism of short-term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequencies. Biochem J 405(3):559–568. Grayson J. 1996. Radiation exposure socioeconomic status and brain tumor risk in the U.S. Air Force: a nested casecontrol study. Am J Epidemiol 143:480–486. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2005a. Case-control study on cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for acoustic neuroma or meningioma in patients diagnosed 2000–2003. Neuroepidemiology 25(3):120–128. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2005b. Use of cellular telephones and brain tumour risk in urban and rural areas. Occup Environ Med 62(6):390–394. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2006a. Case-control study of the association between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant brain tumors diagnosed during 2000–2003. Environ Res 100(2):232–241. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2006b. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk of benign brain tumours diagnosed during 1997–2003. Int J Oncol 28(2):509–518.

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild, K. 2006c. Pooled analysis of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997–2003. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 79(8):630–639. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Hansson Mild K. 2008. Methodological aspects of epidemiological studies on the use of mobile phones and their association with brain tumors. Open Environ Sci 2:54–61. Hardell L, Carlberg M, Ohlson C, Westberg H, Eriksson M, Hansson Mild K. 2007. Use of cellular and cordless telephones and risk of testicular cancer. Int J Androl 30(2):115–122. Hardell L, Eriksson M, Carlberg M, Sundström C, Hansson Mild K. 2005c. Use of cellular or cordless telephones and the risk for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 78(8):625–632. Hardell L, Hallquist A, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M, Gertzén H, Schildt E, et al. 2004. No association between the use of cellular or cordless telephones and salivary gland tumours. Occup Environ Med 61(8):675–679. Hardell L, Hallquist A, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M, Påhlson A, Lilja A. 2002a. Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 11(4):377–386. Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M. 2002b. Case-control study on the use of cellular and cordless phones and the risk for malignant brain tumours. Int J Radiat Biol 78(10):931–936. Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Carlberg M, Söderqvist F. 2006d. Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones. World J Surg Oncol 4:74–83. Hardell L, Hansson Mild K, Påhlson A, Hallquist A. 2001. Ionizing radiation, cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 10(6):523–529. Hardell L, Nasman A, Påhlson A, Hallquist A. 2000. Case-control study on radiology work, medical X-ray investigations, and use of cellular telephones as risk factors for brain tumors. MedGenMed 2(2):E2. Hardell L, Näsman A, Påhlson A, Hallquist A, Hansson Mild K. 1999. Use of cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumours: a case-control study. Int J Oncol 15(1):113–116. Hepworth S, Schoemaker M, Muir K, Swerdlow A, van Tongeren, MJA, McKinney PA. 2006. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study. BMJ 332(7546):883–887. Hours M, Bernard M, Montestrucq L, Arslan M, Bergeret A, Deltour I, et al. 2007. Cell phones and risk of brain and acoustic nerve tumours: the French INTERPHONE casecontrol study [in French]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 55(5):321–332. Hruby R, Neubauer G, Kuster N, Frauscher M. 2008. Study on potential effects of “902-MHz GSM-type Wireless Communication Signals” on DMBA-induced mammary tumours in Sprague-Dawley rats. Mutat Res 649:34–44. Inskip P, Tarone R, Hatch E, Wilcosky T, Shapiro W, Selker R, et al. 2001. Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. N Engl J Med 344(2):79–86. Johansen C, Boice J Jr, McLaughlin J, Olsen J. 2001. Cellular telephones and cancer—a nationwide cohort study in Denmark. J Natl Cancer Inst 93(3):203–207. Karinen A, Heinävaara S, Nylund R, Leszczynski D. 2008. Mobile phone radiation might alter protein expression in human skin. BMC Genomics 9:77; doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-77 [Online 11 February 2008]. Klaeboe L, Blaasaas K, Tynes T. 2007. Use of mobile phones in Norway and risk of intracranial tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev 16(2):158–164. Kleihues P, Cavenee WK, eds. 2000. World Health Organization Classification of Tumours. Pathology and Genetics: Tumours of the Nervous System. Lyon France:International Agency for Research on Cancer Kranzinger M, Jones N, Rittinger O, Pilz P, Piotrowski W, Manzl M, et al. 2001. Malignant glioma as a secondary malignant neoplasm after radiation therapy for craniopharyngioma: report of a case and review of reported cases. Onkologie 24(1):66–72. Krewski D, Byus C, Glickman B, Lotz W, Mandeville R, McBride M, et al. 2001. Recent advances in research on radiofrequency fields and health. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 4(1):145–159. Kundi M. 2003. Comments on the responses of Utteridge et al. (Radiat. Res. 159, 277–278, 2003) to letters about their paper (Radiat. Res. 158, 357–364, 2002). Radiat Res 160(5):613–614. Kundi M. 2004. Mobile phone use and cancer. Occup Environ Med 61(6):560–570, 487.

Kundi M. 2006. Causality and the interpretation of epidemiologic evidence. Environ Health Perspect 114:969–974. Kundi M, Hansson Mild K, Hardell L, Mattsson M. 2004. Mobile telephones and cancer—a review of epidemiological evidence. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev 7(5):351–384. Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, Schoemaker M, Christensen H, Feychting M, et al. 2007. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries. Int J Cancer 120(8):1769–1775. Lahkola A, Salminen T, Raitanen J, Heinävaara S, Schoemaker M, Christensen HC, et al. 2008. Meningioma and mobile phone use—a collaborative case-control study in five North European countries. Int J Epidemiol 37(6):1304–1313. Lai H, Singh N. 1997. Melatonin and a spin-trap compound blocked radiofrequency radiation-induced DNA strand breaks in rat brain cells. Bioelectromagnetics 18:446–454. Lai H, Singh N. 2004. Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environ Health Perspect 112:687–694. Linet M, Taggart T, Severson R, Cerhan J, Cozen W, Hartge P, et al. 2006. Cellular telephones and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Int J Cancer 119(10):2382–2388. Lönn S. 2004. Mobile phone use and risk of intracranial tumors [Doctoral thesis]. Stockholm:Karolinska Institutet. Lönn S, Ahlbom A, Christensen H, Johansen C, Schüz J, Edström S, et al. 2006. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. Am J Epidemiol 164(7):637–643. Lönn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. 2004a. Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology 15(6):653–659. Lönn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. 2005. Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk. Am J Epidemiol 161(6):526–535. Lönn S, Forssén U, Vecchia P, Ahlbom A, Feychting M. 2004b. Output power levels from mobile phones in different geographical areas; implications for exposure assessment. Occup Environ Med 61:769–772. Mohyuddin A, Vokurka E, Evans D, Ramsden R, Jackson A. 2003. Is clinical growth index a reliable predictor of tumour growth in vestibular schwannomas? Clin Otolaryngol Allied Sci 28(2):85–90. Muscat J, Malkin M, Shore R, Thompson S, Neugut A, Stellman S, et al. 2002. Handheld cellular telephones and risk of acoustic neuroma. Neurology 58(8):1304–1306. Muscat J, Malkin M, Thompson S, Shore R, Stellman S, McRee D, et al. 2000. Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer. JAMA 284(23):3001–3007. Phelan A, Lange D, Kues H, Lutty G. 1992. Modification of membrane fluidity in melanin containing cells by low level microwave radiation. Bioelectromagnetics 13:131–146. Repacholi M, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J, Harris A. 1997. Lymphomas in E mu-Pim1 transgenic mice exposed to pulsed 900 MHZ MHz electromagnetic fields. Radiat Res 147:631–640. Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. 2008. Modern Epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia:Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Freedman L, Stovall M, Modan B, Novikov I. 2005. Long-term follow-up for brain tumor development after childhood exposure to ionizing radiation for tinea capitis. Radiat Res 163(4):424–432. Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Jarus-Hakak A, Cardis E, Deutch Y, Duvdevani S, et al. 2008. Cellular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors—a nationwide case-control study. Am J Epidemiol 167(4):457–467. Schlehofer B, Schlaefer K, Blettner M, Berg G, Böhler E, Hettinger I, et al. 2007. Environmental risk factors for sporadic acoustic neuroma (Interphone Study Group, Germany). Eur J Cancer 43(11):1741–1747. Schoemaker M, Swerdlow A, Ahlbom A, Auvinen A, Blaasaas K, Cardis E, et al. 2005. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer 93(7):842–848. Schüz J, Böhler E, Berg G, Schlehofer B, Hettinger I, Schlaefer K, et al. 2006a. Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany). Am J Epidemiol 163(6):512–520. Schüz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen J, Boice J Jr, McLaughlin J, Johansen C. 2006b. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst 98(23):1707–1713. Schwartzbaum JA, Fisher JL, Aldape KD, Wrensch M. 2006. Epidemiology and molecular pathology of glioma. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2(9):494–503. Shirai T, Ichihara T, Wake K, Watanabe S, Yamanaka Y, Kawabe M, et al. 2007. Lack of promoting effects of chronic exposure to 1.95-GHz W-CDMA signals for IMT-2000 cellular system on development of N-ethylnitrosourea-induced central

Environmental Health Perspectives

• volume 117 | number 3 | March 2009



nervous system tumors in F344 rats. Bioelectromagnetics 28(7):562–572. Simkó M, Hartwig C, Lantow M, Lupke M, Mattsson M, Rahman Q, et al. 2006. Hsp70 expression and free radical release after exposure to non-thermal radio-frequency electromagnetic fields and ultrafine particles in human Mono Mac 6 cells. Toxicol Lett 161(1):73–82. Söderqvist F, Carlberg M, Hardell L. 2008. Use of wireless telephones and self-reported health symptoms: a populationbased study among Swedish adolescents aged 15–19 years. Environ Health 7:18; doi:10.1186/1476-069X-7-18 [Online 21 May 2008]. Stang A, Anastassiou G, Ahrens W, Bromen K, Bornfeld N, Jöckel K. 2001. The possible role of radiofrequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma. Epidemiology 12(1):7–12. Szmigielski S. 1996. Cancer morbidity in subjects occupationally exposed to high frequency (radiofrequency and microwave) electromagnetic radiation. Sci Total Environ 180:9–17. Takebayashi T, Akiba S, Kikuchi Y, Taki M, Wake K, Watanabe S,

et al. 2006. Mobile phone use and acoustic neuroma risk in Japan. Occup Environ Med 63(12):802–807. Takebayashi T, Varsier N, Kikuchi Y, Wake K, Taki M, Watanabe S, et al. 2008. Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: a case-control study. Br J Cancer 98(3):652–659. Thomas T, Stolley P, Stemhagen A, Fontham E, Bleeker M, Stewart P. 1987. Brain tumour mortality risk among men with electrical and electronic jobs: a case-control study. J Natl Cancer Inst 79:233–238. Umansky F, Shoshan Y, Rosnethal G, Fraifeld S, Spektor S. 2008. Radiation-induced meningioma. Neurosurg Focus 24(5):E7; doi:10.3171/FOC/2008/24/5/E7. Vanderstraeten J, Verschaeve L. 2008. Gene and protein expression following exposure to radiofrequency fields from mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect 116:1131–1135. Vijayalaxmi, Obe G. 2004. Controversial cytogenetic observations in mammalian somatic cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation. Radiat Res 162:481–496.

Vijayalaxmi, Prihoda TJ. 2008. Genetic damage in mammalian somatic cells exposed to radiofrequency radiation: a metaanalysis of data from 63 publications (1990–2005). Radiat Res 169(5):561–574. Vrijheid M, Cardis E, Armstrong B, Auvinen A, Berg G, Blaasaas K, et al. 2006a. Validation of short term recall of mobile phone use for the Interphone study. Occup Environ Med 63(4):237–243. Vrijheid M, Deltour I, Krewski D, Sanchez M, Cardis E. 2006b. The effects of recall errors and of selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 16(4):371–384. Warren H, Prevatt A, Daly K, Antonelli P. 2003. Cellular telephone use and risk of intratemporal facial nerve tumor. Laryngoscope 113(4):663–667. Wrensch M, Minn Y, Chew T, Bondy M, Berger M. 2002. Epidemiology of primary brain tumors: current concepts and review of the literature. Neuro Oncol 4(4):278–299.



117 | number 3 | March 2009 • Environmental Health Perspectives…...

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Uses and Abuses of Mobile Phone

...cell phones are a wonderful convenience of modern life; for others, they are irritating contraptions that should be banned from public areas. A mobile phone or cell phone is an electronic telecommunication device with the same basic capability as a conventional fixed-line telephone, but which is also entirely portable and is not required to be connected with a wire to the telephone network. Most current mobile phones connect instead to the network using a wireless radio wave transmission technology. The mobile phone communicates via a cellular network of base stations, also known as cell sites, which are in turn linked to the conventional telephone networks. In addition to the standard voice function of a telephone, a mobile phone can support many additional services such as SMS for text messaging, packet switching for access to the Internet, and MMS for sending and receiving photos and videos. In less than twenty years, mobile phones have gone from being rare and expensive pieces of equipment used by businesses to an all pervasive low-cost personal item. In many countries, mobile phones now outnumber land-line telephones, with most adults and many children now owning mobile phones. It is not uncommon for young adults to simply own a mobile phone instead of a land-line for their residence. In some developing countries, where there is little existing fixed-line infrastructure, the mobile phone has become widespread. With high levels of mobile telephone penetration, a mobile......

Words: 1576 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Radiation and Cancer: the Connection Between Cell Phone Use and Brain Cancer

...January 2012 “Radiation and Cancer: The Connection between Cell Phone Use and Brain Cancer” According to a Baltimore neurologist, Christopher J. Newman, Motorola is the cause a life frightening tumor that has developed overtime in his brain. Newman sues Motorola for “a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the relevant products” (Parascandola). The court system and scientist are feuding on the matter of using scientific data as evidence in court cases. The courts argue whether or not the data is applicable and reliable. Hence, the association of cellular phone radiation and brain cancer is still under dispute on whether there is a correlation in between the two. Worldwide there are over 4.3 billion cell phone users (web). This substantial number of cell phone users also causes generous amount of radiation to be generated. The radiation that is discharged through these devices is to as radio frequency (RF) energy. The measure of RF energy that is taken in by users is known as its Specific Absorption Rate or SAR. SAR is what researchers use to compare radiation given off by cell phones to cancerous tumors. Scientist research the amount of SAR that is exposed in different mobile phone models. For a phone to pass the Federal Communication Commission its SAR must be less than 1.6 W/kg (web). Researchers from CNET in 2007 did a study to show the quantity of radiation given off by various cell phone models. Figure 1......

Words: 1677 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Use of Mobile Phone

...-------- A Study on Applications of Mobile Phones by Students of NITK, Surathkal.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submitted by B Shrikar, Roll No: 12HM34 as a project for Business Research. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contents Chapter-1 Introduction 3 Chapter-2 Review of Literature 4 Chapter-3 Methodology 5 Chapter-4 Data Analysis and Result 9 Chapter-5 Summary and Conclusion 19 Chapter-6 Bibliography 20 Team Members : 12HM33 TO 12HM40. Sachin , Shrikar B. 12HM34 Salman, Santosh, Saurabh, Sayelee, Kynsailin Snaitang Shruthi H, Chapter-1 Introduction A decade back, mobile phone was considered a luxury. But today, it is a necessary tool for communication, even for the students. Students of NITK vary in terms of parental income, interest, age, attitude, place of domicile, gender. They use mobile phone for information, entertainment and to stay connected with their family and friends. For some students mobile phone is also a fashion-oriented product and the use of mobile phone is directly affected by the change in prevailing fashion. The present......

Words: 4599 - Pages: 19

Premium Essay

Ict Essay on Mobile Phones

...Mobile Phone Technology The development in mobile phone technology in 1918 with tests of wireless telephony. The first portable cell phone was invented (and released) by Dr. Martin Cooper in 1973. It weighed about 2.2 pounds. It was the incarnation of his vision for personal wireless communications, distinct from cellular car phones. That first call, placed to Cooper's rival at AT&T's Bell Labs from the streets of New York City, caused a fundamental technology and communications market shift toward the person and away from the place. The First Cell phone (1973) * Name: Motorola Dyna-Tac * Size: 9 x 5 x 1.75 inches * Weight: 2.5 pounds * Display: None * Number of Circuit Boards: 30 * Talk time: 35 minutes * Recharge Time: 10 hours * Features: Talk, listen, dial In 1973, when the company installed the base station to handle the first public demonstration of a phone call over the cellular network, Motorola was trying to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to allocate frequency space to private companies for use in the emerging technology of cellular communications. After some initial testing in Washington for the F.C.C., Mr. Cooper and Motorola took the phone technology to New York to show the public. Cell Phone Timeline 1843 Micheal Faraday a talented chemist begins researching the possibility that space can conduct electricity. His research starts the wheels turning for many other 19th century......

Words: 2199 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Integrating the Use of Mobile Devices Such as Tablets and Cell Phones at Vision Quest Corporation

...Integrating the use of Mobile devices such as Tablets and Cell Phones at Vision Quest Corporation Managerial Applications of Information Technology DeVry University, Keller Graduate School of Management December 17, 2012 Table of Contents Abstract 3 Company Background 3 Business Problems 4 High-Level Solution 5 Approach 6 Benefits to Solving the Problem 6 High-level Implementation Plan 8 Changes to Technology Conclusion 9 Summary of Recommendations 9 References 11 Integrating the use of Mobile devices such as Tablets and Cell Phones at Vision Quest Corporation Abstract The business problem to be solved is how Vision Quest Corporation can improve the company’s productivity and service quality to clients and referral sources, for the company’s Functional Family Therapy Team (FFT), by integrating the use of mobile devices such as tablets and cell phones for their mobile therapist. Company Background Vision Quest is an employee-owned comprehensive national youth services organization that adheres to the highest professional standards in providing innovative intervention services to at-risk youth and families. Vision Quest programs help troubled teens and their families to successfully find their way from confusion to a positive future. One of the many umbrellas under Vision Quest is its Functional Family Therapy (FFT) model. Functional Family......

Words: 2174 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Cell Phone Brain Cancer

...“Study: cell phone-brain cancer link inconclusive” (Jordans, 2010) a major international study into the link between cell phone use and two types of brain cancer has proved inconclusive, according to a report due to be published in a medical journal Tuesday. A ten year survey of almost 13,000 participants found most cell phone use didn't increase the risk of developing meningioma — a common and frequently benign tumor — or glioma — a rarer but deadlier form of cancer. There were suggestions that excessive usage of cell phones can cause brain cancer. Researchers also looked at the effects of using handsfree devices during calls or the risk of having cell phones in a pocket or next to the bed. Cell phones beam radio-frequency energy that can penetrate the brain's outer edge, raising questions about cancers of the head and neck, brain tumors or leukemia. Most research has found no risk, but a few studies have raised questions. While U.S. health officials insist the evidence shows no real reason for concern, they don't give the phones a definitive clean bill of health, either, pending long-term data on slow-growing cancers. The authors acknowledged possible inaccuracies in the survey from the fact that participants were asked to remember how much and on which ear they used their mobiles over the past decade. The authors said further investigation is necessary before they can conclude with certainty that there is no link between cell phone radiation and brain cancer, partly......

Words: 308 - Pages: 2

Premium Essay

Relationship Between the Usage of Cell Phones and Brain Tumrs

...twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. One piece of technology most people have with them throughout the day is a cell phone. This study will investigate the relationship between the usage of cell phones and the increased risk of brain tumors. Numerous research studies have been done to analyze how the usage of cell phones correlates with the instance of brain tumors. This paper will analyze the findings of these studies and provide a description of the findings from the research studies that have been done related to the question do cell phones cause an increase in brain tumors to the cell phone users. Literature Review Berg, G., Spallek, J., Schüz, J., Schlehofer, B., Böhler, E., Schlaefer, K., et al. (2007) found that exposure to radio frequency and microwave electromagnetic fields can contribute to an increase the incidence of brain tumors. The same kind of radio frequency and microwave electromagnetic fields are produced by cell phone phones. If Radio frequency and microwave electromagnetic fields are both produced by cell phones than this could be an issue to anyone who uses a cell phone. If exposure to these radio frequencies and or microwave electromagnetic waves increases the risk of developing brain tumors this is a problem for the majority of the USAGE OF CELLPHONES AND BRAIN TUMORS population worldwide at an estimated “number of cell phone users in 2014 will reach 1.75 billion.” eMarketer (2014). Wiart, J., Wake, K., Vrijheid, M., Villegas, R.,......

Words: 1550 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Factor Affecting the Uses of Mobile Phone

...Research Report on Factor Affecting the Uses of Mobile Phone. Abstract Mobile phones are one of the fastest-adopted innovations in history. Globally, mobile phones have rapidly become widespread in most parts of the world. The purpose of present research paper is to discuss the various factors affecting the uses of mobile phone. The primary data was collected by using survey method. Sampling was all from student, to services category, business person to formers as well as housewives. The questionnaire was pre-tested on 10 individuals to assess its design and clarity and was then redesigned. Some important construct were developed and factor analysis was carried out to identify the factor. . Different factors are identified from the results of factor analysis such as…….gender ,age ,education level, monthly income, necessity or purpose of having mobile phone, quality of service provider, pricing and so on. INTRODUCTION 0wing to the availability of telecommunication technology, mobile phone becomes more and more important in daily life. Mobile phone is not only as tools for communication, but also as tools for people working and emotional interaction. People are more relying on mobile phone than ever before. Most people in daily life, the average timing within a day "must" use mobile phones absolutely far beyond other consumer products. Under this highly dependent characteristic, mobile phone becomes one of mandatory items for modern people while out of home or office,......

Words: 864 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Cell Phones and Brain Cancer

...Cell phones and brain cancer Now a days everyone has a cell phone. People of all ages rely on their cell phone for daily tasks. How many times a person feels absolutely powerless without a cell phone? Which leads us to a very important question. What type of damage does the use of cell phone causes in the brain? The purpose of this paper is to explore if there is evidence that will link cell phone use and brain cancer. There has been a tremendous increase of cell phone use that is starting at a young age. This means a longer exposure to cell phones throughout life. Currently, people do not seem preoccupied with the idea of brain cancer. There are no reports of cell phone use decrease from consumers. People start using cell phone at a younger age every year. Middle school admission paper work requests student’s cell phone number to inform emergency situations, which leads to pressure to parent to get the student a phone. Some people are abstaining from traditional phone line service in their homes. Phones lines can be seen as waste of money since cell phone use is more prominent in some households. University of Great Fall’s library research data base was used to search for evidence that will link cell phone use and brain cancer. The keywords used where “cell phone use and brain cancer.” The Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Science reviewed total of 30 studies on mobile phones, all but one were case-control studies (Bayazit, Bayram, Pala, & Atan, 2010, p. 246).......

Words: 678 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Mobile Phones

...RAHMAN CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 2 History 2 Human Behavior and Health 2 The Parents' Approach 3 Mobile Phone Use Leading to Stress Among Teens: Study 3 METHADOLOGY 6 OPERANTITONAL DEFINITION 6 SAMPLE 6 INSTRUMENT 6 HYPOTHESIS 6 METHOD 6 RESULT 10 DISCUSSION 2 LIMITATIONS 2 INTRODUCTION A mobile phone (also known as a wireless phone or cellular phone) is a short-range, electronic device used for mobile voice or data communication over a network of specialized base stations known as cell sites. In addition to the standard voice function of a mobile phone, telephone, current mobile phones may support many additional services, and accessories, such as SMS for text messaging, email, packet switching for access to the Internet, gaming, Bluetooth, infrared, camera with video recorder and MMS for sending and receiving photos and video. Most current mobile phones connect to a cellular network of base stations (cell sites), which is in turn interconnected to the public switched telephone network (PSTN) (the exception is satellite phones). History In 1908, U.S. Patent 887,357  for a wireless telephone was issued in to Nathan B. Stubblefield of Murray, Kentucky. He applied this patent to "cave radio" telephones and not directly to cellular telephony as the term is currently understood. Cells for mobile phone base stations were invented in 1947 by Bell Labs engineers at AT&T and further developed by Bell Labs during the 1960s...

Words: 2487 - Pages: 10

Free Essay

Use of Mobile Phones in Bangladesh

...late '60s and early '70s. But the truth is there have been remarkable movies made in the 1990s and 2000s. From big budget blockbusters, to breakout independent films, to discoveries from around the world, we have seen exciting and groundbreaking cinematic work created in the last two decades. For our second installment of our "100 Movies to See Before You Die," we decided to highlight these "Modern Classics" made between 1990 and 2009. Like our first list, we chose movies based on their artistry, originality, and pure cinematic entertainment. And even we were surprised by the results. While big stars like George Clooney, Tom Hanks, and Morgan Freeman are well-represented on the list with three films each, it's acclaimed actress Catherine Keener who appears in the most movies. By working in both independent films like "Being John Malkovich" and studio productions like "The 40-Year-Old Virgin," she personifies the best of the era. Look through the list below to see our choices for the top movies made in the last twenty years. Click on a title to add your comments about that particular choice. And take a look at the original "100 Movies to See Before You Die" to see the seventeen films that appear on both lists. 1990 [pic] Goodfellas DIRECTED BY: Martin Scorsese STARRING: Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci WHY YOU SHOULD SEE IT Misery DIRECTED BY: Rob Reiner STARRING: James Caan, Kathy Bates 1991 Beauty and the Beast DIRECTED BY: Kirk Wise, Gary......

Words: 1888 - Pages: 8

Premium Essay

Factors Affecting Consumer's Choice in Mobile Phones

...Recent Research on Mobile Phones Effects Dr. Abdullah AlOrainy Inst. of Electronics Research, KACST P. O. Box: 230471, Riyadh 11321, Saudi Arabia E-mail: ABSTRACT The use of mobile phones always accompanied by the issue of health implications for human. Previous research studies show no evidence of the impacts of mobile phones to human health. New studies suggest that mobile radiation might double the risk of developing cancer on the side of the head used, increase brain activity, can cause damage to nerves around ears and, more importantly, damages the BBB. Also new research shows that biological effects are possible without any warming of tissues which impose of the current radiation exposure levels. KEYWORDS Mobile Radiation, Health Effects INTRODUCTION There are now about 1 Billion mobile phones in use worldwide, and it is expected to reach 1.6B lines by year 2005. In many countries, penetration rates of more than %50 has been reached. At present, there are approximately 4.5 million GSM subscribers in Saudi Arabia and STC has commissioned Ericsson and Nokia to expand its GSM network to 5.5 million lines (~ %20 penetration rate). This wide use of mobile technology have often raise the question about if there are health implications for human. In fact, there are conflicting reports relating to possible health effects from mobile phones and base stations. In April 2000, an independent expert group in UK has issued a report on Mobile phone effects on......

Words: 2922 - Pages: 12

Free Essay

Cell Phones Do Not Cause Brain Cancer

...Cell Phones Do Not Cause Brain Cancer Abstract The effects of cellular phone use were examined with the attempt to find a correlation between increased brain cancer and increased cell phone use. Over the last 20 years, cellular phone use has become the primary form, and in many cases the only form, of communication. These devices use radio frequency technology to transmit and receive communications. There has been controversy around whether or not these radio frequency signals cause cancers in the brain when the devices are used and placed directly on the head. Multiple studies have not been able to prove a direct correlation between the use of cellular phones and brain cancer. Keywords: cellular phones, cancer, brain, radio frequency Cellular Phones Do Not Cause Brain Cancer Cellular phones became widely popular in the early 1990’s and have become a mainstream necessity to most people today. Many people now use cellular phones as their primary or only form of communication with most households abandoning traditional landline telephony. Technology has also evolved at such a tremendous pace that the majority now uses cellular devices as not only phones, but as computers as well. With the increased demand and the ability for manufacturers to reduce costs, these devices have also become more accessible and important to people of all ages, with the majority of users “in the age range of 18 to 49” (Anderson, 2015). As of 2014, “it is estimated that there are......

Words: 1069 - Pages: 5

Free Essay

Cell Phones and Cancer

...Cell Phones and Cancer In today's innovative era of technological breakthroughs, we enjoy many benefits of technology, which give us the power to get things done faster, enjoy greater convenience, and have access to wonderful tools that improve all areas of life (Siepmann, 2004). However, there are many concerns that we are paying a price for these benefits-perhaps in the form of cancer. Major concerns arise from the fact that we are increasingly exposed to logarithmically increasing non-ionizing radiation from wireless systems, cell phones, satellite transmissions, electricity transmission, and other products. This paper aims to present a solid argument that cell phones, in particular, may be a cause of cancer. Researchers suggest that high power electrical distribution lines may increase the incidence of certain cancers (Siepmann, 2004). According to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (1990): “In conclusion, the several studies showing leukemia, lymphoma and cancer of the nervous system in children exposed to magnetic fields from residential 60 Hz electrical power distribution systems, supported by similar findings in adults in several occupational studies also involving electrical power frequency exposures, show a consistent pattern of response that suggests, but does not prove, a causal link. Frequency components higher than 60 Hz cannot be ruled out as contributing factors. Evidence from a large number of biological test systems shows that these fields......

Words: 2672 - Pages: 11

Premium Essay

Mobile Phones

...2008 MOBILE LEARNING: AN APPLICATION OF MOBILE AND WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES IN NIGERIAN LEARNING SYSTEM. Boyinbode O. K. and Akinyede R. O. Department of Computer Science, Federal University of Technology Akure, Nigeria Abstract Mobile learning (M-Learning) is the point where mobile computing and e-learning intersect to produce an anytime, anywhere learning experiences. Advances in mobile technologies have enhanced M-learning tools at just the right moment to meet the need for more costeffective just in time training options-learning on the go. Electronic Learning offer methods, which decrease the limitations of traditional education but M-learning offers more. This paper discusses the existing devices and technologies appropriate to realize Mobile learning, its advantages over e-learning, and challenges to its adoption of in Nigeria. Keywords: e-Learning, m-learning, mobile computing, SMS, MMS disadvantages lead to search for new and more effective educational methods. E-learning offers new methods for education based on computer internet technology. Mlearning is the intersection of mobile computing and elearning [5]; M-learning has the ability to learn everywhere at every time without permanent physical connection to cable networks. Mobile and Wireless technologies are being used in diverse areas such as travel, education, stock trading, military, package delivery, disaster recovery, and medical emergency care; but emphasis in this paper will be on mobile learning. Mobile......

Words: 4432 - Pages: 18