Epidemiological evidence for an association between use of wireless phones and tumor diseases

Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Orebro, Sweden.
Pathophysiology 03/2009; 16(2-3):113-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.pathophys.2009.01.003
Source: PubMed


During recent years there has been increasing public concern on potential cancer risks from microwave emissions from wireless phones. We evaluated the scientific evidence for long-term mobile phone use and the association with certain tumors in case-control studies, mostly from the Hardell group in Sweden and the Interphone study group. Regarding brain tumors the meta-analysis yielded for glioma odds ratio (OR)=1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.9-1.1. OR increased to 1.3, 95% CI=1.1-1.6 with 10 year latency period, with highest risk for ipsilateral exposure (same side as the tumor localisation), OR=1.9, 95% CI=1.4-2.4, lower for contralateral exposure (opposite side) OR=1.2, 95% CI=0.9-1.7. Regarding acoustic neuroma OR=1.0, 95% CI=0.8-1.1 was calculated increasing to OR=1.3, 95% CI=0.97-1.9 with 10 year latency period. For ipsilateral exposure OR=1.6, 95% CI=1.1-2.4, and for contralateral exposure OR=1.2, 95% CI=0.8-1.9 were found. Regarding meningioma no consistent pattern of an increased risk was found. Concerning age, highest risk was found in the age group <20 years at time of first use of wireless phones in the studies from the Hardell group. For salivary gland tumors, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and testicular cancer no consistent pattern of an association with use of wireless phones was found. One study on uveal melanoma yielded for probable/certain mobile phone use OR=4.2, 95% CI=1.2-14.5. One study on intratemporal facial nerve tumor was not possible to evaluate due to methodological shortcomings. In summary our review yielded a consistent pattern of an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma after >10 year mobile phone use. We conclude that current standard for exposure to microwaves during mobile phone use is not safe for long-term exposure and needs to be revised.

Download full-text


Available from: Kjell Hansson Mild, Oct 07, 2015
36 Reads
  • Source
    • "From a communications standpoint, it is necessary to clearly and transparently inform about the pro and contra arguments for the classification based on the selected evidence. The other positive study [Hardell et al., 2009] was clearly demonstrated [Ahlbom et al., 2009] to be an outlier compared with the majority of other epidemiological studies. While IARC's definition of 2B was technically complied with, because two epidemiology studies showed positive results, there is considerable doubt about the interpretation of what is a positive effect. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In May 2011, the International Agency on Cancer in Research (IARC) issued an official statement concluding that cell phone usage was “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” There have been considerable doubts that non-experts and experts alike fully understood what IARC's categorization actually meant, as “possibly carcinogenic” can be interpreted in many ways. The present study is based on an online survey indicating that both the characterization of the probability of carcinogenicity, as well as the description of the risk increase given in the IARC press release, was mostly misunderstood by study participants. Respondents also greatly overestimated the magnitude of the potential risk. Our study results showed that IARC needs to improve their scientific communications. Bioelectromagnetics. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
    Bioelectromagnetics 07/2014; 35(5). DOI:10.1002/bem.21851 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "However, the classification of the non-ionising radiations from mobile phones as a 2B (‘possible’) carcinogen by the IARC in 2011 is a cause for serious concern that should generate follow-up research.22 The IARC classification has been controversial partly because it was based on just two large epidemiological studies which indicated possible brain cancer risks, according to most experts at the IARC meeting.23 24 A lack of relevant animal data and divergent interpretations of the epidemiological data provide much scope for further research. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: History confirms that while technological innovations can bring many benefits, they can also cause much human suffering, environmental degradation and economic costs. But are we repeating history with new and emerging chemical and technological products? In preparation for volume 2 of 'Late Lessons from Early Warnings' (European Environment Agency, 2013), two analyses were carried out to help answer this question. A bibliometric analysis of research articles in 78 environmental, health and safety (EHS) journals revealed that most focused on well-known rather than on newly emerging chemicals. We suggest that this 'scientific inertia' is due to the scientific requirement for high levels of proof via well replicated studies; the need to publish quickly; the use of existing intellectual and technological resources; and the conservative approach of many reviewers and research funders. The second analysis found that since 1996 the funding of EHS research represented just 0.6% of the overall funding of research and technological development (RTD). Compared with RTD funding, EHS research funding for information and communication technologies, nanotechnology and biotechnology was 0.09%, 2.3% and 4% of total research, respectively. The low EHS research ratio seems to be an unintended consequence of disparate funding decisions; technological optimism; a priori assertions of safety; collective hubris; and myopia. In light of the history of past technological risks, where EHS research was too little and too late, we suggest that it would be prudent to devote some 5-15% of RTD on EHS research to anticipate and minimise potential hazards while maximising the commercial longevity of emerging technologies.
    Journal of Epidemiology &amp Community Health 06/2014; 68(9). DOI:10.1136/jech-2014-204019 · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "During the last two decades, there has been a significant increase in cell phone usage throughout the world. Meanwhile, continuous electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones, through the development of oxidative stress and DNA fragmentation, can obviously lead to the development of different pathologies including tumors, and also can violate spermatogenesis [1, 2]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction It is impossible to imagine a modern socially–active man who does not use mobile devices and/or computers with Wi–Fi function. The effect of mobile phone radiation on male fertility is the subject of recent interest and investigations. The aim of this study was to investigate the direct in vitro influence of mobile phone radiation on sperm DNA fragmentation and motility parameters in healthy subjects with normozoospermia. Material and methods 32 healthy men with normal semen parameters were selected for the study. Each sperm sample was divided into two equal portions (A and B). Portions A of all involved men were placed for 5 hours in a thermostat, and portions B were placed into a second thermostat for the same period of time, where a mobile phone in standby/talk mode was placed. After 5 hours of incubation the sperm samples from both thermostats were re–evaluated regarding basic motility parameters. The presence of DNA fragmentation in both A and B portions of each sample was determined each hour using a standard sperm chromatin dispersion test. Results The number of spermatozoa with progressive movement in the group, influenced by electromagnetic radiation, is statistically lower than the number of spermatozoa with progressive movement in the group under no effect of the mobile phone. The number of non–progressive movement spermatozoa was significantly higher in the group, which was influenced by cell phone radiation. The DNA fragmentation was also significantly higher in this group. Conclusions A correlation exists between mobile phone radiation exposure, DNA–fragmentation level and decreased sperm motility.
    Central European Journal of Urology 01/2014; Cent European J Urol(67):65-71. DOI:10.5173/ceju.2014.01.art14
Show more