Mobile phones cause ‘five-fold increase in brain cancer risk’

what's behind the veil..?

People who started using mobile as teenagers and have been doing so for more than a decade are at a five-fold risk of developing a common type of brain cancer, new evidence indicates.

By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent,.telegraph.co.uk
Campaigners said the research, published in the International Journal of Oncology, was further evidence of the need to educate children of the potential dangers of talking on mobile phones.

Researchers from the University Hospital of Örebro and Umeå University examined the mobile and cordless phone use of more than 1,200 Swedes, who were diagnosed with malignant brain cancer between 1997 and 2003.

Of those, the 905 who were still alive were interviewed about their phone usage. For the remaining 346 who had died., researchers asked their relatives about their loved-ones’ telephone habits.

They then compared this to phone use information on almost 2,500 ‘controls’ who were either living and had no brain cancer, or had died of other causes. Each ‘case’ and each ‘control’ was matched for age, sex and social class.
*************************************************************

sluggish carriers

The 2G mobile network uses a frequency of 1.8 GHz the 3G 2.1GHz
and the cordless landline 1.88 GHz, WiFI 2.45 GHz and microwave ovens 2.45GHz (but only when they are on)
So cordless landlines operate at a very similar microwave frequency to mobiles. Also the data is carried as a modulation which is like a low frequency ‘pulse’. This is what makes the radiation so biologically active as shown in numerous lab experiments.
You can easily rent or buy monitoring equipment and you can see for yourself that the radiation emitted from a cordless landline when on a call is the same order of magnitude as from a mobile phone. Similar amounts of radiation being pumped into your brain and face. Brain tumours/mouth/eye cancers caused by cordless phones and mobile phones are on the same side of the head as you hold the phone.

beauty rarely meets quality

There is now an infinite number of `peer reviewed’ International `scientific’ research available on the web’
And while checking out these `facts’ maybe you can also check out how many millions the mobile phone industry put into cancer research. It is very interesting that, as soon as we get the `scientific’ evidence’ that pulsed microwaves could cause cancer, we immediately have a denial published by the cancer `industry’. Follow the money!
Our
brain is the most complex and unknown part of the human body, yet the the
neuroscience has developed a lot in the past decades, and has been able to help the human being to have a knowledge of what’s inside. The discovery of the neuroplasticity, the
ability of the brain to create and develop neurons and connections to decrease
the natural cognitive decline and improve the brain capacity, has also been
breakthrough. It created a new form of training – the brain training programs.
When scientifically validated, these programs may change your life for the better.
***********************************************

Mobile phones ‘possibly carcinogenic’ say World Health Organisation experts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8548725/Mobile-phones-possibly-carcinogenic-say-World-Health-Organisation-experts.html
*************************************************************************

Mobile phones may increase the risk of developing brain cancer, an influential health organisation has said admitted for the first time.

whither...?

Martin Beckford

By Martin Beckford, Health Correspondent
The International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation, has classified the radiation emitted by handsets as “possibly carcinogenic” although it did not find evidence of a clear link.

Its decision – putting mobiles in the same risk category as lead, the pesticide DDT and petrol exhausts – will put governments under pressure to update their advice to the public on the potential dangers of talking on mobiles for long periods of time.

Christopher Wild, the director of IARC, said that while more research is carried out “it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting”.

It has long been known that the radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by mobile phones are absorbed by the body, much of it by the head when the handset is held to the ear.

But research into the possible health consequences of frequent mobile use has proved inconclusive because the technology has only been widely used for a few years while it can take decades for tumours to develop.
Related Articles

*

Do mobile phones really cause cancer? Probably not
01 Jun 2011
*

Sun cream guidelines ‘leave millions at risk’
31 May 2011
*

Dignity in old age comes at a high price
01 Jun 2011
*

Mobile phones ‘may increase brain cancer risk’
30 May 2011
*

Dukan diet founder in court as rival claims regime a ‘fairy tale in reverse’
01 Jun 2011
*

The four stages of the Dukan diet
01 Jun 2011

Last year a landmark IARC study, known as Interphone, disclosed that making calls for more than half an hour a day over 10 years could increase users’ risk of developing gliomas – a type of tumor that starts in the brain or spine – by 40 per cent.

Over the past eight days, a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries reviewed the Interphone data and other studies, including a Swedish report that also found evidence of increased brain tumour risk among mobile users.

They concluded that there was “limited” evidence that wireless phones are linked to brain cancer – meaning that it could be down to chance rather than causation – and “inadequate” proof that mobiles cause other types of cancer.

Dr Jonathan Samet, chairman of the group, admitted the evidence is “still accumulating” but insisted: “The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk”.

By classifying mobiles as “possibly carcinogenic”, the IARC has placed them alongside DDT, chloroform, coffee, lead and working as a firefighter in a list of more than 900 agents it has analysed. However this is only the third-highest rating, below “carcinogenic to humans”, which includes cigarettes, and “probably carcinogenic”, which includes diesel exhausts and creosote.

But with an estimated 5 billion mobile phones in the world, health agencies are likely to act on the IARC’s warning, which will now be discussed by the World Health Organisation.

As The Daily Telegraph disclosed in March, the Department of Health in England recently updated its advice to the public by saying that sending text messages or using hands-free kits can reduce exposure to radiation, by keeping the handset away from the head.

It is also recommended that children only use mobiles when strictly necessary, as they are at greater risk of absorbing radiation.

Following the IARC’s announcement, experts pointed out that it did not prove mobiles cause cancer, and that there was still little long-term research on the subject.

Ed Yong, head of health information at Cancer Research UK, said: “The risk of brain cancer is similar in people who use mobile phones compared to those who don’t, and rates of this cancer have not gone up in recent years despite a dramatic rise in phone use during the 1980s.

“However, not enough is known to totally rule out a risk, and there has been very little research on the long-term effects of using phones.”

Prof Malcolm Sperrin, Director of Medical Physics & Clinical Engineering at Royal Berkshire Hospital, said the categorization was justified but added: “It should also be stated that electromagnetic field exposure is not new – witness the regular usage of radio and other waves for many decades with no convincing health detriment at low powers. The social and technological benefits also need to be emphasised.”

John Cooke, Executive Director of the Mobile Operators Association, said: “It is important to note that IARC has not established a direct link between mobile phone use and cancer. It has, however, concluded that there is the possibility of a hazard. Whether or not this represents a risk requires further scientific investigation.”

think and use

Radiation from popular cellular phones

The cellular phone has to emit radiofrequency energy at levels high enough to reach base stations (antenna towers) tens of kilometers away. Since the energy is emitted as a microwave in the direct vicinity of the users head there are concerns about the safety of this technology. There are reports from cell studies as well as animal studies that are most worrying. Among other effects the double DNA breakage is among the fundamental och disturbing findings. This may indicate that there may be a significant risk of developing cancer tumours, foremost brain tumours in the user of cellular (mobile) phones.

The design of the cellular phones casing, electronic and foremost the antenna construction gives widely different near and far fields around the phone. It is at present time not completely clear what parameters of the field gives biological effects, however as an intermediate cautionary step one can use the simple measure of absorbed radiated energy into the tissue of the head. This is given as a SAR – Specific Absorption Ratio and is measured in watts per kilogram. This may not be a true measure of the biological hazard from the phone but may be used as an indication of the energy recieved into the head. See it as prudent avoidance.

Niels Kuster, a radiation expert at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, has developed a new measurement technique to measure cell-phone EMR towards the user’s head. He measured 16 popular cell phone models, and published the results in the Swiss Consumer Report magazine. The table below was initiated based upon data from his study:

Additional new phone models added from other sources 990611
Additional phone models added 991004, source Aftonbladet 991004
Additional source http://www.sardata.com/sardata.htm 000808

Manufacturer Model SAR (W/kg)
Motorola Star Tac 130 0.10
Nokia Nokia 8810 0.22
Hagenuk Global 0.28
Motorola StarTac 0.33
Motorola i1000plus 0.35
Mitsubishi Trium Galaxy G-130 0.37
Motorola Star Tac 130 (fixed antenna) 0.38
Sony CM-DX 1000 0.41
Ericsson SH888 0.42
Sony CMD-C1 0.55
Ericsson I8888 World 0.60
Nokia 6150 0.69
Motorola CD 930 0.70
Siemens C25 0.72
Nokia 8110i 0.73
Audiovox HGP2000E 0.75
Ericsson S828 0.77
Motorola d160 0.81
Nokia 6110 0.87
Ericsson A1018s 0.88
Sony CMD-Z1 0.88
Ericsson SH888 0.90
Ericsson GF788 0.91
Trium Galaxy 0.93
Motorola cd 930 0.94
Panasonic EB-G520 0.95
Ericsson GH688 0.95
Audiovox PCX-1000XL 0.98
Panasonic EB G500 0.98
Audiovox CDM 4000 1.00
Motorola GSM 1900 1.00
Sharp TQ G700 1.01
Philips Genie 1.05
Nokia 1611 1.06
Philips Diga 1.06
Philips Savy 1.11
Bosch GSM 909 1.13
Nokia 3210 1.14
Sanyo SCP-400 1.16
Trium Galaxy (fixed antenna) 1.16
Motorola cd 920 1.17
Nokia 3110 1.24
Ascom Axento 1.25
Motorola Startac (TDMA) 1.25
Motorola I500 1.25
Philips Genie 1800 1.26
Nokia 6161 1.27
Samsung SCH6100 1.27
LG Info & Com 1.29
Mitsubishi T250 1.29
Audiovox 9000 1.30
Bosch M-Com 906 1.32
Ericsson DH-668 1.32
Ascom Elisto 1.33
Denso TP 2200 1.33
Siemens C25 1.33
Nokia 7160 1.33
Qualcomm QCP-2760 1.33
Ericsson A1228D 1.35
Motorola Startac dualmode 1.36
Denso Touchpoint 1.37
Sanyo SCP-310 1.37
Neopoint NP-1000 1.38
Samsung SCH3500 1.38
Sanyo SCP-4500 1.38
Nokia 8860 1.39
Sony CMB-1200,2200,3200 1.39
Ericsson T18 1.40
Ericsson R280 1.41
Philips Genie 1800 (fixed antenna) 1.41
Qualcomm 1960 1.41
Nokia 6162 1.42
Nokia 6185 1.42
Sanyo SCP4000 1.44
Audivox 3300 1.45
Nokia 5160 1.45
Mitsubishi T200 1.47
Samsung SCH8500 1.49
Ericsson LX-588 1.51
Motorola SC-3160 1.52
Philips Genie 900 1.52
Ericsson KF788 1.56
Motorola v3688 1.58
Bosch GSM908 1.59
Philips Genie 900 (fixed antenna) 2.67

SAR is given as Cenelec value for average EMR exposure of user’s head, measured in Watt per kg of user’s body weight. (A low number means less radiated energy into the users head).

The fact that Ericsson SH888 is given two different SAR values reflects the uncertainty how SAR should be measured. The same radiation will give different SAR values depending on calculation or measurement method, whether the ear is a lossy one or just a distancer, and if the SAR is calculated over 1 g, 10 g or 1 kg of tissue (and also the shape that region is given, eg. a cube).

Note that Star Tac exists in various models, some have low SAR and some don´t. Also note that despite the low SAR for Star Tac many people complain of headaches or other sympthoms when using those (just another indication that SAR may NOT be the best way of describing health effects from cellular phones).