This being the real world, it is important to note that it is impossible to categorically prove 100% that there is no causal link between two things (the authors point out that their results mean that "the induction period relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or there is no increased risk") which always leaves space for the conspiracy theorists, but basically it's completely safe to carry on using your phone (except when driving ;-))!
There are no (properly scientific) studies showing a statistically significant link between mobile phone usage and an increase in brain cancer. The biggest study of this to date was published back in October this year. It's a longitudinal study of nigh on 60,000 cancer sufferers, i.e. it looks at how incidences of brain cancer have changed over time and compares this to mobile phone usage to determine if there is an statistically significant increase in cancer rates as mobile phone usage has increased. There isn't one. Here's the abstract of the report: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/c...tract/djp415v1
Oh, and the reason why most of these studies are carried out in Scandanavia is that they have a longer history of common mobile phone use than anywhere else, so you can have a bigger sample group in your study and produce more reliable results.
The type of radiation that everybody agrees causes damage and therefore cancer is ionizing radiation, and X-rays can be a type of ionizing radiation depending on intensity and frequency. However the microwave radiation that mobile phones is not ionizing, hence mobile devices are theoretically safe.
This is the first time in human history that people are regularly and habitually exposing themselves to low level microwave radiation. As such this situation is unprecedented. No one knows what if any damage is caused by mobile phone use.
Sure everybody's heard stories about a mate of a mates girlfriends brothers baby sitter getting a brain tumor, and about how she was always chatting on the mobile phone, and yeah, that must have caused it. But the fact is that there are magnitudes more people who have the phone stuck to their ear all day long that don't go on to develop cancer.
As I stated in my previous post I believe we are a long way from knowing what if any long term effects there are from using mobile phones.
I'm sitting on the fence with this one, one side of me says the level of radiation emitted is so small that it cannot possibly be harmful, but the other side of me says we just don't know at the moment, hence I try to limit my use of my mobile - within reason.
It can be a bit over the top but there's a site that has a lot of info if you search on it for EMF. www.mercola.com
While a phone needs to transmit with enough power to reach a base station antenna that may be a couple of miles away, Bluetooth has a nominal range of 30 feet.
Because radio energy dissipates at a rate proportional to the square of the distance, the transmit power of a Bluetooth radio can be orders of magnitude lower than that of the phone itself. And except when you are actually using the headset for a conversation, the Bluetooth radio is idle nearly all the time.
Source:
http://www.businessweek.com/technolo...dex_technology
-----
Mobile phone handsets are low-powered RF transmitters, emitting maximum powers in the range of 0.2 to 0.6 watts. Other types of hand held transmitter, such as "walkie talkies", may emit 10 watts or more. The RF field strength (and hence RF exposure to a user) falls off rapidly with distance from the handset. Therefore, the RF exposure to a user of a mobile phone located 10s of centimetres from the head (using a "hands free" appliance) is far lower than to a user who places the headset against the head. RF exposures to nearby people are very low.
Source:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
---------
I believe the highest quality peer-reviewed research on the subject is found here -no research has yet found epidemiological effects from mobile phone use or otherwise. The radiation that a phone emits is non-ionising and therefore doesn't cause cancer like an x-ray would, so it's not all about how much radiation it emits, but what kind. I think mobile phones are pretty harmless, but maybe better safe than sorry.
yeah, what he said
that is absolute bollocks!
a wired headset on a phone is the same as the headphones on your mp3 player... and is in no way an extension of the phone.
I think you already did the research, thanks! Ill check Pubmed tomorrow anyways to see what I fin, now I am curious. Thanks!!!
Totally agree with Slaphead here.
I spent years of my life in front of actual microwave sources (1+kW sources, so around 1000 cellphones at once). I'm still alive. I've probably had more exposure than Paris Hilton will ever have in her vapid, cellphone driven life.
Truly the most dangerous use of cellphones is while driving. That scares me more than anything else.
Edit: These sources were actual magnetrons, if anyone is feeling picky. Not just microwave ovens.
Is anyone aware of the World Health Organization's study that links cell phone use to cancer?
According to the study, the electric and magnetic fields may cause thermal and non-thermal effects on biological tissue. Tissues containing Magnetite, an iron oxide, are probably most susceptible to the effect. Magnetite is found in certain bacteria and cells. There are scientific theories that fishes and birds use such cells to navigate.
In this case I will not use my phone close to my aquarium anymore.
Just read it and I'm afraid you are misinterpreting it. It in no way links cell phone use to cancer, quite the opposite in fact. Here's the actual [relevant] conclusions, with my added emphasis. While you read them, you need to know that this study was published 9 years ago (April 2000):
1) "rather little research specifically relevant to these emissions has been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature [to date]"
2) "it is not possible at present to say that exposure to RF radiation, even at levels below national guidelines, is totally without potential adverse health effects"
3) "The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population", however "there may be biological effects occurring at exposures below these guidelines"
4) "we recommend that a precautionary approach to the use of mobile phone technologies be adopted until much more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects becomes available "
So basically it was saying that they could find no evidence for health problems being directly caused by mobile phone use, but as the amount of research that was available at that time (April 2000) was patchy it was advisable to err on the side of caution. Now, 9 years later, the research available is far more complete and there is still no evidence of a link between phone use and cancer (see my earlier post for links to the latest published research).
No sir, it is your reply that is somewhat testicular. The wired headset of a phone is connected to a radio device. It acts as an aerial, is an extension of the phone, and produces the same radiation as the phone.
The wired headset of your mp3 player isn't attached to a radio device and so it doesn't act as an aerial, and so doesn't produce any RF radiation.
Wow. You read fast. Unfortunately, I linked you to the wrong report. I pointed you to the report published in 2000.
A couple of reports say WHO will publish an article this year (2009) showing a link:
Long-term use of mobile phones 'may be linked to cancer'
A breakdown of the findings shows a rise in the risk of glioma - the most common brain tumour. Israeli studies found heavy users were at least 50 per cent more likely to suffer tumours of the salivary gland.
Alasdair Philips, of campaign group Powerwatch, said: "Primary school children should not have mobile phones, secondary school children should be encouraged to text rather than call, and males should not keep them in a pocket as they drastically affect fertility."
I had a second look through the WHO site, but did not find any new reports. It is rumoured to be coming soon. I guess we can wait until the report is published, if it ever gets published.
This is the type of brain tumor that my mother had and that her neurosurgeon said that he and the other neurosurgeons at Johns Hopkins are seeing in more patients. I'm not, however, saying that my mother's tumor was caused by her cell phone.
Even when the results of the study come out at the end of this year, I don't think that we'll have a definitive answer. I think that the answer will come in about 10-20 years, with more research and following what happens with current cell phone users.
In the meantime, I'm going to err on the side of caution and follow the recommendation of my mother's neurosurgeon to keep the cell phone as far away from my head as possible. As an interesting side note, while I was at Johns Hopkins Hospital, which is one of the best research hospitals in the world, I noticed that the majority of the doctors were wearing ear pieces while talking on their phones, which is what my mother's neurosurgeon recommended.
I really hope that there isn't a correlation between cell phone usage and brain cancer because I know how much I've used my phone in the past.
Hi All,
I know I promised something so here it goes, This is the abstract of a review published in Epidemiology in September thsi year and is a review of all data published. Here is the abstract:
This review summarizes and interprets epidemiologic evidence bearing on a possible causal relation between radiofrequency field exposure from mobile phone use and tumor risk. In the last few years, epidemiologic evidence on mobile phone use and the risk of brain and other tumors of the head in adults has grown in volume, geographic diversity of study settings, and the amount of data on longer-term users. However, some key methodologic problems remain, particularly with regard to selective nonresponse and inaccuracy and bias in recall of phone use. Most studies of glioma show small increased or decreased risks among users, although a subset of studies show appreciably elevated risks. We considered methodologic features that might explain the deviant results, but found no clear explanation. Overall the studies published to date do not demonstrate an increased risk within approximately 10 years of use for any tumor of the brain or any other head tumor. Despite the methodologic shortcomings and the limited data on long latency and long-term use, the available data do not suggest a causal association between mobile phone use and fast-growing tumors such as malignant glioma in adults (at least for tumors with short induction periods). For slow-growing tumors such as meningioma and acoustic neuroma, as well as for glioma among long-term users, the absence of association reported thus far is less conclusive because the observation period has been too short.
Epidemiology.;) 2009 Sep;20(5):639-52 Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk: a review. Ahlbom A , Feychting M , Green A , Kheifets L , Savitz DA , Swerdlow AJ ; ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology%20Standing%20Committee%20on%20Epidemiology%22%5BCorporate%20Author%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstract) .
EDIT: I have not altered the abstract in ANY way...
Thanks for that Angela. So basically as I've said - we still don't have a bloody clue. Ah well.
The following is from the article, "French government bans advertising of mobiles to children". LINK
The French government will also introduce new limits for radiation from the phones and make it compulsory for handsets to be sold with earphones, so that users can avoid irradiating their heads and brains....
Basically, yep. I still think it would be better to prevent, I am now using my headphones when answering my Iphone
Does it? Here I was thinking that the aerial must be tuned to the wavelength if you actually want to achieve proper effects, it's not being merely a "plug a clotheshanger into the hole" type affair.
Because if it is, people who operate actual radios cum headsets (say, for instance, pilots) with proper radiating power would mostly be dead by now (if of course RF frequency would actually a) travel through the headset cord and b) affect their brains. )
Maybe we ought to ask some phonemaker if the headset is actually plugging into the antenna module.