Quantcast
issue
Read articles, including Science News stories written for ages 9-14, on the SNK website.
Cell phones: Precautions recommended
A+ A- Text Size

By Janet Raloff

Web edition: September 16, 2009

Several government bodies around the world suggest that anyone who uses a cell phone (and these days, who doesn’t) would be well advised to keep a little distance between that phone and their body. And when people need to make a call, they should minimize radiation exposures by phoning only where reception is really good.

In justifying these and other precautions at a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing on Monday, several scientists observed that recent studies have begun linking heavy use of cell phones over a prolonged period with an increased risk of cancer. Especially in the head, and on the same side that people normally hold their phones.

Of course, if such a link were robust, cell phones would be sold with little warning labels, much as cigarettes are today. That link is not robust. On the other hand, they argued, it’s also not going away. Quite the contrary.

For instance, Olga Naidenko, a senior scientist with the Environmental Working Group, a research/advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., led a team that just completed a 10-month analysis of 200 peer-reviewed studies on cell-phone safety.

“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,” Naidenko said. “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.”

She and others at the hearing argued that in light of the accumulating — though still far from strong — indications of health risks, people would be wise to adopt the precautionary principle. Israeli physician and cell-phone researcher Siegal Sadetzki put it succinctly: “Better safe than sorry.”  

People can and should adopt simple practices that reduce their exposure to cell-phone radiation, said this researcher from the Gertner Institute (affiliated with the Sackler School of Medicine at Tel-Aviv University). Nearly all of the researchers and scientists who spoke at the hearing similarly advocated a precautionary approach.

The lone holdout: Linda Erdreich, who spoke at the behest of CTIA-The Wireless Association®. This international group represents, among others, cell-phone makers and wireless-service providers. Erdreich, a consulting epidemiologist, saw no reason to take precautionary measures, she said, because her reading of the scientific literature suggests wireless phones pose no harm.

“The currently available scientific evidence about the effects of radiation emitted by mobile phones is contradictory,” admits Dariusz Leszczynski of Finland’s Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, in Helsinki. “There are both studies showing effects and some studies showing no effect.”

Rather than view this uncertainty as reason for complacency, he says, it makes more sense to consider as “premature” any interpretation that cell phones are safe. In fact, Leszczynski contends, “Current [cell phone] safety standards are not supported by science because of the very limited research on human volunteers and on children.” Rather, he says, “This uncertainty calls not only for precautionary measures but also for further research.”

His agency has issued two cell-phone advisories suggesting what such precautions might include — like limiting children’s use of cell phones. And texting,  when possible, instead of actually talking on a cell phone (to keep that phone away from direct contact with the body).

Last year, Sadetzki’s team reported finding a 50 to 60 percent increased risk among certain Israeli adults  of parotid-gland tumors (mostly benign tumors of the salivary gland). The affected group: heavy users of cell phones who did not listen to their calls via a hands-free device (such as a wired earphone or wireless ear piece). Writing in the American Journal of Epidemiology, she and her colleagues noted: “A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements. Based on the largest number of benign PGT patients reported to date, our results suggest an association between cellular phone use and PGTs.”

 At the hearing, Sadetzki said her group’s findings were consistent with research by others linking cell phone use for 10 or more years to tumors in the brain and to acoustic neuroma (a benign tumor affecting the nerve that connects the ear to the brain).

In the July International Journal of Oncology, Lennart Hardell and Michael Carlberg of Orebro University Hospital in Sweden reported an update of their cell-phone studies looking at brain-cancer risk. Here, phone habits were analyzed for some 3,600 people, both individuals with cancer and healthy controls. And people who had developed astrocytoma — a type of brain cancer — were five times as likely to be heavy cell-phone users who got their first mobile phone during their teen years, at least a decade earlier. Cordless home phones did not show a similar link.

It may not be surprising that some of these links to cell phone use are only now emerging, Sadetzki said at the hearing, because there can be long latency periods separating exposures to carcinogens and the development of tumors. For instance, she pointed out that the first reports of brain tumors linked to radiation from the atomic-bomb blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn’t show up until a half-century after the bombings.

 “Since widespread cell-phone use began only in the mid-‘90s,” she notes, “the followup period in most published studies is only about 10 years.”

Cell-phone technology “is here to stay,” she acknowledges, so “the question that needs to be answered is not whether we should use cell phones, but how.”

For instance, she noted that the French health ministry has warned against excessive cell-phone use by children because their bodies may still be undergoing developmental changes that render them especially susceptible to radiofrequency emissions. Moreover, cell-phone radiation penetrates their brains proportionately more deeply than it does in adults. The Israeli health ministry recommends that cell-phone users employ speakers, earphones or hands-free technologies and limit use of these phones where reception is weak.

Naidenko has yet another recommendation: “Buy low-radiation phones.” Identifying which emit the lowest radiation can be difficult, she acknowledged. That’s why her group developed a free, interactive online guide that provides manufacturer-stated radiation-emissions values for more than 1,200 different phones.

Comment
Print Friendly and PDF

Sadetzki, S., et al. 2008. Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors—A Nationwide Case-Control Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 167(Feb. 15):457. [Go to]

Hardell, L. and M. Carlberg. 2009. Mobile Phones, Cordless Phones and the Risk for Brain Tumours. International Journal of Oncology 35(July):5. DOI: 10.3892/ijo_00000307

Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (Finland). 2009. Children's mobile phone use should be limited (January). [Go to]

Comments (6)

Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.

  • Environmental effects interact with genetics. Especially in a case like this, where the effects are near the limit of significance, it would make sense to correlate individual outcomes with as many of the individual's genetic markers as possible. I would expect them to find that some people are much more susceptible than others. If we had some idea of the underlying genetics, it would be possible to provide useful advice to the people who need it.
    quixote - quixote -
    Sep. 18, 2009 at 2:56pm
  • I can't help thinking about Senator Ted Kennedy's well-documented habit of constantly calling everyone to connect, whether family, friends or constituents. When calculated, over the time period that he used a cellphone, one wonders how that use may have been related to his type of brain cancer. High alcohol use is also a cancer contributor, as is living on Cape Cod, which has higher statistical cancer levels, so cause is hard to determine, but the possibility lingers.

    Elizabeth Lowe
    Elizabeth  Lowe Elizabeth Lowe
    Sep. 20, 2009 at 9:48am
  • Why no mention of using Bluetooth Headsets (not that they are ALL that good for providing clear listening and speaking) as a means of keeping the supposed undesirable radiation away from what may be sensitive organs that have little shielding surrounding body mass?
    Keeping the radiation emitter no lower than belt level on a person could address some of these concerns. Of course, manufacturers would need to spend time on developing better Bluetooth Headsets.
    Personally, I use a wired headset and keep my cell phone on a windshield flip-down visor or on my belt to the side of my body.
    Gerald Curtis Gerald Curtis
    Sep. 20, 2009 at 12:21pm
  • Studies from Europe where GSM is the prevalent technology would seem to indicate a correlation with tumors of varying types. In the U.S. two major carriers employ CDMA which uses a much lower signal strength spread over 1.25 MHz spectrum bandwidth thereby reducing cell resonance effects that the stronger GSM signal could invoke. One interesting observation involves the use of cordless phones which do not seem to show a similar link. Cordless phones use spread-spectrum technology which are Frequency-hopping or Direct-Sequence. The latter is CDMA (Code Division Multiple Access). Maybe it's time for researchers to differentiate between the 2 major 2G technologies - GSM and CDMA and also the 3G ones like UMTS which is CDMA-based. Incidentally, I don't work for any company that has a stake in any technology but have a long history of deployment. I know which system I prefer, but I'll leave the biological and epidemiological analysis to the experts !
    Iain Stewart Iain Stewart
    Sep. 20, 2009 at 1:35pm
  • Given the rise of cell phones from zero to billions in, what, 15 years, if cell phones are causing problems, the problems should stand out from the normal levels as unmistakable spikes. If the spikes aren't there, just another FUD.
    ART DAY ART DAY
    Oct. 13, 2009 at 11:43pm

  • [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    m9bnat m9bnat2 m9bnat m9bnat2
    Jan. 9, 2010 at 4:31pm
Registered readers are invited to post a comment. To encourage fruitful discussion, please keep your comments relevant, brief and courteous. Offensive, irrelevant, nonsensical and commercial posts will not be published. (All links will be removed from comments.)

You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.

Follow Us