There has been a tremendous increase in the use of cell phones in the past decade. By the end of 2008, worldwide use of mobile phones had increased to about 4.1 billion. (1)
In Africa alone, mobile phone sales have grown by 550 percent in five years, according to The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2)
Many companies are making a healthy profit. With the recent announcements of 2nd quarter earnings, it is known the cell phone handset industry has sold over $65B in the last 6 months.
Of that, 9.7% was pocketed by the companies. It was recently announced that Apple received 32% of the total handset market’s profits, equivalent to $2,038,000,000, all from selling the iPhone. Prior to paying expenses, the net revenue Apple earned from the iPhone is over 5 billion dollars. (3)
However, there have been concerns about the possible hazardous effects of radio frequency electromagnetic waves (RF or EMW) emitted by these devices, and from the mobile masts (3G) that receive and emit signals to mobile phones, on human health.
Prior to 2003, studies of cancer risk and cell phone use produced conflicting results. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told consumers that scientists had found no harmful health effects from exposure to cell phone emissions. However, the FDA’s assurances were based on studies of people who had used cell phones for just 3 years on average, usually not long enough to develop cancer. (4)
Then, in 2006, doubts were eased when the BBC published a report by the renowned British Medical Journal which stated:
“Mobile phone use does not lead to a greater risk of brain tumor”.
A study of 2,782 people across the UK found no link between the risk of glioma – the most common type of brain tumor – and length of mobile use.
Among cancer sufferers, the tumors were more likely to be reported on the side of the head where they held the phone.
But the British Medical Journal study said people over-reported phone use on the side their cancer developed. (5)
“These results are reassuring for everyone with a mobile” said Dr Kat Arney of Cancer Research UK.
“This is the biggest and most thorough study into mobile phones and glioma so far, and it adds to the growing evidence that there is no link, ” she added.
This was also emphasized by Wendy Fulcher, who founded the Brain Tumor Research Campaign. She hoped people would finally be reassured by the results of the research.
The research, which was carried out by the British arm of an international project called Interphone, reiterates the findings of most earlier studies in saying that there is no connection between cancer and mobile phone use.
The Interphone study is the name given to a series of multi-national case-control studies to assess whether RF exposure from mobile phones is associated with cancer risk. The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) has coordinated the study. (6)
The coordination of the International Study and the national data collection in Europe and Israel is funded by the European Union (Quality of Life Program under contract number QLK4-1999-01563) and the International Union against Cancer (UICC).
Funding has also been obtained by national and local investigators in Europe and elsewhere from national and local funding bodies. (7)
The UICC received funds for this purpose from the Mobile Manufacturers’ Forum and GSM Association.
The GSMA represents the interests of the worldwide mobile communications industry. Spanning 219 countries, the GSMA unites nearly 800 of the world’s mobile operators, as well as more than 200 companies in the broader mobile ecosystem, including handset makers, software companies, equipment providers, Internet companies, and media and entertainment organizations. The GSMA is focused on the end goal of driving the growth of the mobile communications industry.(8)
The MMF is an international association of telecommunications equipment manufacturers with an interest in mobile or wireless communications. Established in 1998, the associations mission is to facilitate joint funding of key research projects and cooperation on standards, regulatory issues and communications concerning the safety of wireless technology, accessibility and environmental issues.
The MMF has offices in Belgium, Brazil and Hong Kong and is currently active in more than 30 countries, as well as supporting an extensive international research program. (9)
Recently, another arm of the the mobile phone industry, the Mobile Operators Association, dismissed research by Vini G. Khurana, PhD et al, as “a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual.” (10)
The Khurana review attempted to address the following question: is there epidemiologic evidence for an association between long-term cell phone usage and the risk of developing a brain tumor? (11)
The scientists conducted a meta-analysis of 11 long-term epidemiological studies in this field. The results indicate that using a cell phone for greater than or equal to 10 years, approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (”ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use.
- acoustic neuroma
The data achieved statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma. The authors concluded that there is adequate epidemiological evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor.
Do other scientists support the research findings?
A new analysis of already-published studies points to a tumor risk following long-term use of cell phones.
Meta-analysis by a joint Korean-U.S. team of 13 past studies was published on October 13, 2009, in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Its conclusions support two previous similar efforts: all three indicate a 20-25% increase in tumors after ten or more years of cell phone use.
“I went into this really dubious that anything was going on,” Joel Moskowitz of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health, told the Los Angeles Times. “Overall, you find no difference. But when you start teasing the studies apart and doing these subgroup analysis, you do find there is reason to be concerned.” Moskowitz is one of the coauthors of the new study; the lead author is Seung-Kwon Myung of South Korea’s National Cancer Center. (12)
These findings resulted in comment by Dr R. PAWL, USA, Neurosurgeon & Section Editor of Surgical Neurology:
“The authors have provided the most comprehensive study and analysis to date of this topic, which, until the last year or so, has remained controversial—most studies denying a relation between cell phone use and a risk of brain tumor development.” (13)
However, the Mobile Operators Association believes “it does not present a balanced analysis” of the published science, and “reaches opposite conclusions to the World Health Organisation (WHO) and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews”. (14)
This is also mirrored by the draft of a new advisory leaflet for parents by the Department of Health which removes safety advice to impose strict limits on youngsters’ use of the handsets. (15)
It goes on to suggest that heating to the head caused by using a mobile is no more harmful than a hot bath.
Alasdair Philips of the Powerwatch Organisation opposed relaxing safeguards, he says; ‘The Government seems to be more interested in tax revenue from mobile phone calls, which is about £15billion per year now, than in the protection of public health”.
His statement was also given more substance when on Monday, according to ‘The Daily Telegraph’ newspaper, a decade-long investigation overseen by the WHO will publish evidence that heavy users face a higher risk of developing brain tumors later in life.
Even though the conclusion of the research will be revealed later this year, a preliminary breakdown of the results found a “significantly increased risk” of some brain tumors “related to use of mobile phones for a period of 10 years or more” in some studies, the report in the British daily said. (16)
This report was refuted the following day by Professor Bruce Armstrong from the University of Sydney, who is working on the decade-long World Health Organisation (WHO) study of over 123,000 people. He says the study has not yet confirmed whether or not there is an increased risk of cancer from mobile phone use.
However, it has been confirmed by Olga V. Naidenko, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Working Group (EWG).
She had this to say:
“Last week, EWG released the results of a 10-month investigation of more than 200 peer-reviewed studies, government advisories, and industry documents on the safety of cell phone radiation. We found that the studies amassed during the first two decades of cell phone use produced conflicting results and few definitive conclusions on cell phone safety. But the latest research, in which scientists are for the first time able to study people who have used cell phones for many years, suggests the potential for serious safety issues”.(17)
“Studies published over the past several years find significantly higher risks for brain and salivary gland tumors among people using cell phones for 10 years or longer. The state of the science is provocative and troubling, and more research is essential”, she added.
Recent research also suggests that EMW emitted from cell phones can reduce the fertilizing potential of men. (18)
Although not conclusive, a recent study involving 361 men attending an infertility clinic suggested that use of cell phones adversely affect the quality of semen by decreasing the sperm counts, motility, viability and morphology, which might contribute to male infertility.
Keeping cell phones close to waist has been found to decrease sperm concentration as compared to men not using cell phones at all or storing it elsewhere.
Investigators Erogul et al 2006, also found a decrease in sperm motility in semen samples of men exposed to 900 MHz cell phone for 5 min. (19)
Spermatozoa are extremely vulnerable to induction of DNA damage as they lose their cytoplasm containing anti-oxidant enzymes and their capacity for DNA repair. The induction of DNA damage in spermatozoa has been associated with male infertility, early pregnancy loss and morbidity in the offspring, including childhood cancer. (20)
Children may also be affected in other ways.
Scientists questioned the mothers of 13,159 children born in Denmark in the late1990s about their use of mobile phones in pregnancy, and their children’s use of them and behavior up to the age of seven. As they gave birth before mobiles became universal, about half of the mothers had used them infrequently or not at all, enabling comparisons to be made.
They found that mothers who did use the handsets were 54 per cent more likely to have children with behavioral problems and that the likelihood increased with the amount of potential exposure to the radiation.
When the children also later used the phones they were, overall, 80 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties with behavior.
They were 25 per cent more at risk from emotional problems, 34 per cent more likely to suffer from difficulties relating to their peers, 35 per cent more likely to be hyperactive, and 49 per cent more prone to problems with conduct.
The scientists say that the results were “unexpected”, and that they knew of no biological mechanisms that could cause them. But when they tried to explain them by accounting for other possible causes – such as smoking during pregnancy, family psychiatric history or socio-economic status – they found that, far from disappearing, the association with mobile phone use got even stronger.
They add that there might be other possible explanations that they did not examine – such as mothers who used the phones frequently might pay less attention to their children – and stress that the results “should be interpreted with caution” and checked by further studies. But they conclude that “if they are real they would have major public health implications”. (21)
These major public health implications are also outlined by the official Russian radiation watchdog body who, warning against both pregnant women and children using cell phones, believes that the peril they pose “is not much lower than the risk to children’s health from tobacco or alcohol”. (22)
This is further enhanced by The National Research Council (NRC) who has observed that “with the rapid advances in technologies and communications utilizing radiation in the range of cell phone frequencies, children are increasingly exposed at earlier ages (starting at age 6 or before).” (23)
Research by France Telecom scientists showed that under standard conditions of use, twice as much cell phone radiation would penetrate a child’s thinner, softer skull, than an adult’s.
Children will be exposed to cell phone radiation for more years and therefore in greater total amounts than the current generation of adults.
There is already a substantial proportion of children who use mobile phones regularly; among teens, the number of non-users is steadily decreasing towards a very minor fraction.
If there is doubt about the penetrative powers of EMW, then this is lessened when we learn of the results in a recent study published in the September issue of The Journal of Craniofacial Surgery. It looked at long-term exposure and whether electromagnetic fields from cell phones could weaken the bone.
The researchers measured bone density at the upper rims of the pelvis (iliac wings) in 150 men who were cell phone users and carried their phones on their belts. The measurements were performed using a technique called dual x-ray absorptiometry—the same test used to measure bone density in patients with osteoporosis and other bone diseases.
Bone density was compared on the side where the men wore their phones (the right side in 122 men and the left side in 28) versus the opposite side. The men carried their phones for an average of 15 hours per day, and had used cell phones for an average of 6 years.
The results showed a slight reduction in iliac wing bone density on the side where the men carried their phones. The difference was not statistically significant, and did not approach the reductions seen in osteoporosis. However, the researchers point out that the men were relatively young—average 32 years—and that further bone weakening may occur with longer follow-up. (24)
Although this may or may not result in deliberating disease such has osteoporosis it does emphasize the strength of RF in that if it can penetrate bone and weaken bone density in adults, albeit slight, the chances of it penetrating cellular level through the womb, testes and the softer skull of children is not beyond the imagination.
Are individual companies becoming concerned about this and other recent findings? Is this another case that mirrors the asbestos industry? When dangers to health found to be associated with the product came to light and cover ups became apparent, many companies within the industry were faced with litigation.
Apple are taking no chances. For example, Apple’s iPhone3G-S Product Information Guide distributed with current iPhones states;
“...When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body, and only use carrying cases, belt clips, or holders that do not have metal parts and that maintain at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) separation between iPhone and the body…If you are still concerned about exposure to RF energy, you can further limit your exposure by limiting the amount of time using iPhone…and by placing more distance between your body and iPhone, since exposure level drops off dramatically with distance.” [Apple Inc., June 19, 2009]. (25)
Dr Khurana goes even further. He recommends using a landline in preference to a mobile phone, or “speaker-phone mode” with the cell phone or cordless unit held at least 20 cm from the head, or a wired ear piece.
The EWG strongly advises cell phone users to protect themselves and their families by buying low radiation phones. Cell phone users can also reduce radiation exposures with a headset.
Any other issues with cell phone use and radiation?
Cell phones do not work without base stations (commonly called ‘masts’). Without them, a call cannot be made. They need to be where people use their phones.
When making a call, radio signals are sent from a cell phone to the nearest base station which transmits them to other cell phones or fixed networks.
In order to enable millions of people across the country to make calls, mobile phone operators divide the country into thousands of individual geographic areas known as ‘cells’. At the heart of each cell is a base station.
The national average for proximity to a mobile phone transmitter varies depending on the type of mast. The latest masts are far more powerful so they can transmit more sophisticated data, such as photos and videos for people to download on internet phones.
Masts are placed on average 800 meters away from each home across the country. In the UK, there are over 50,000 and in the USA, nearly 2million. (26)
Like the cell phone, masts emit radio signals and electromagnetic fields.
Are they dangerous?
Maybe, if you live near one. Any evidence?
In a town near Exeter in the UK, there were 4 cancers, of which 3 are leukaemias and 1 stomach cancer all in direct line, and within 300 meters of an Orange (name of operator) mobile phone mast, which was erected in 1996. The beam of greatest intensity goes through these 4 houses before it reaches the town. In each house a cancer incidence has been reported.
In House 1, where the Orange mast was erected in 1996, (91 meters from the mast) a baby was in the womb. In 1999, aged 3, the baby was diagnosed with leukaemia . The beam of greatest intensity went directly through her bedroom.
Chorleywood, UK businessman Michael Savva, who lives on the corner of Valley Road and Berry Lane with his wife and three children, learned earlier this year that Orange was to erect a 12 meter device next to his garden fence.
He admits he is powerless to prevent the building of a 40 foot mobile phone mast just yards from his home and has warned: “this could happen to anyone.”
‘How would you feel if you were me? How would you feel if you had worked 35 years of your life to pay for a house and then see it ruined?’
When complete, the mast it will tower above the large detached property potentially shedding tens of thousands of pounds from its value and causing health concerns to its occupants.
Why not complain?
Under current planning laws even Three Rivers District Council, responsible by law for policing even the most trivial of development applications, is powerless to stop the mast because of wide-ranging powers granted to mobile phone companies by the government. (27)
Under so-called ‘permitted development rights’, they need only seek “prior approval” for masts under 15 meters in height. Councils are given 56 days to raise objections and consult with the public but have no power to prevent the developments if the landowner, in this case Transport for London, agrees.
“We asked them (Orange) to move it further from the house but they said no. As the law stands, there is nothing we can do to force them.” said Mr Savva.
- ‘3G’ or ‘Third Generation’ mobile phone mast in Pankhurst Avenue
He is not alone in complaining about the location of these masts. Take, for example, cell phone company T-Mobile . The company erected a ‘3G’ or ‘Third Generation’ mobile phone mast in Pankhurst Avenue, Brighton, UK.
The mast is outside Brighton General Hospital, about 50 meters from a day center for people with mental health problems and a similar distance from the nearest houses.
Many of the houses belong to the Queens Park Estate, a community with the highest percentage of children aged between 0 and 15 in the city, and it is it is a short distance from two primary schools.
Green Party Councilor Bill Randall said at the time that Brighton and Hove City Council was notified of the intention to erect, but local councilors and local people were not informed.
“T-Mobile is aware of community concerns about 3G masts, particularly around children’s health,” he said, “and cannot give an absolute assurance that no health risk is attached.
In response to plans for a new wave of masts, the company has received many letters and e-mails from concerned residents, who also presented two petitions and sent a deputation to the council meeting and demonstrated outside the town hall”.
“The residents’ actions raise another important issue,” said Councilor Randall. “Should a large company solely in pursuit of profit be allowed to ride roughshod over a community that is opposed to its actions?”
What’s the Government’s stance on the situation?
The Government, who pocketed £22.5 billion from the sale of 3G licenses (28), say radiation emissions readings from mobile phone masts next to more than 100 schools and hospitals are well below recommended limits. (29)
Are these recommended limits reliable?
Not if you take into account the fourteen people living within a mile of a tower that recorded levels 5,000 times below the safe exposure limit who have died of cancer. A further 20 residents have developed tumors in the last seven years, although they have survived. (30)
The mast was erected in 1995 on a disused water tower on the High Acres estate in Kingswinford, near Dudley, West Midlands, UK. It serves four mobile phone operators.
However, campaigners claim health problems started among the 700 residents of the estate when more antennae and dishes were 
added in 2001.
This has brought to attention a key theory which has been put forward that it is the electromagnetic radiation frequency, and not intensity or power of the signal, which can cause the damage, of which some people are more sensitive to the effects than others. (31)
Yasmin Skelt from pressure group Mast Sanity, which campaigns against the spread of mobile phone masts, said: “The Government keeps refusing to believe there is a problem. China and Russia realize this and keep their limits at a sixtieth of what we have got.
We are being told nothing about the health effects, agencies that should be helping the British public are not helping. Why are we putting up with it?”
People may not be putting up with it for much longer. In January 2009, US President Barack Obama turned to a Midland, UK anti-mobile phone mast campaigner to help with the fight against cancer. (32)
Eileen O’Connor, as a founder member of the Radiation Research Trust, has led the battle against the relentless growth of mobile phone masts and technology for the past seven years.
The US President’s cancer panel, set up by Obama to research the possible links with both nuclear and electro-magnetic radiation, has asked Eileen for her views on the issue.
Eileen said: “Obama’s panel has launched an information gathering exercise and I was invited to provide evidence. While I am not building up my hopes, I am delighted the issue is being taken seriously by the President”.
President Obama recently said;
“Science is about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient and I welcome this approach.”
Sound rhetoric indeed. The problem is, scientific research is going to be influenced by bodies such as the mobile phone industry and financial factors such as the effect of income on the economy. Is the research going to protracted and deliberately drawn out so sales can continue in the hope new technology can be found to halt the harmful effects of RF /EMW?
Will we have to wait 10 years to see if African brain tumor incidence has risen for action to be taken?
There’s no doubting the usefulness of the mobile phone. However, this is diminished if it is detrimental to long term health especially where children are concerned.
Lets hope we are not about to mirror the events of the tobacco industry.
We all know who the loser is there, don’t we.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Limit Your Exposure To
Cell Phone Radiation
…………………………………………………………………..
Ann Margrain
Founder Heroin and Cornflakes Blog
“Heroin and Cornflakes” was conceived and founded (and is run and edited) by Ann. In between looking after two children and 10 chickens, Ann spends most of her time gardening and thinking about how best we can make our planet a better place. Ann previously lived in an apartment in London. However with the arrival of two children she realised city life was not for her. She now has an old renovated clay brick house in Hungary and enjoys a more sustainable and eco friendly lifestyle. Surrounded by various fruit trees and vines, she is fast becoming an expert in the making of jams, chutneys and fruit juice. I also run a website arch1design.
Enough about me! I hope you enjoyed the article.
Profile update……
In the summer a cat got 3 chickens. A bird of prey got another. Last week it rained heavily and a weasel managed to dig under the door and kill the remainder. So back to the local market for eggs!
Related posts:
