Details emerge on possible cell-phone radiation risk

A group of scientists at the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, which last month classified low-level radiation from cell phones as "possibly carcinogenic to humans," provided more details yesterday about how they arrived at their conclusions in a report published online in The Lancet Oncology.

The panel of 30 scientists from 14 countries reviewed hundreds of articles, including animal research and human studies, some of which had methodological limitations or provided inconsistent results. The new report cites some key studies, including the 2010 INTERPHONE study, the largest investigation so far of cell phone use and brain tumors.

The INTERPHONE data showed that people who used cell phones appeared to be at a slightly lower risk, overall, of developing glioma, a type of brain cancer, than those who never used cell phones. However, in that same study, the top 10 percent of cell phone users in terms of call time (total exposure 1,640 hours and over) had a 40 percent increased risk of glioma compared with those who never used cell phones.

The findings also suggested an increased risk for tumors on the side of the head where the phone was held, and in the brain’s temporal lobe, where exposure to cell phone radiation is highest.

In their new article, the scientists also cited Swedish research published in 2011, that showed an increased risk for glioma with the use of cell phones for more than 10 years. The risk was highest in subjects who first used cell phones before age 20.

Although the INTERPHONE and Swedish studies are susceptible to bias—due to selection of subjects and errors in recall about cell phone use—the scientists said they could not dismiss the findings. They concluded that a “causal interpretation” between exposure to cell phone radiation and glioma is possible.

The new report also noted that those studies drew a “similar” conclusion for acoustic neuroma, a non-cancerous tumor, although the case numbers were substantially smaller than for glioma. Moreover, a study from Japan has found some evidence of an increased risk for acoustic neuroma associated with the same side of the head as cell phone use.

Bottom line: The IARC action is based on limited evidence and doesn't convincingly link typical cell-phone use with cancer. But it does increase the need for further study, as well as better and more visible guidance to consumers on the issue.

Cell phone use linked to brain tumors | Health Impact News

Here’s some news about cell phones and cancer which even the mainstream media has found impossible to ignore. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), has declared after a review of the research that cell phones are possible cancer-causing agents. The expert panel ruled that there was some evidence that cell phone use was linked to two types of tumors—brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas.

Some scientists say the IARC classification is still not strong enough, and that cell phone radiation should have been classified as a “Probable Human Carcinogen” based on the existing science, but evidently there were not enough studies to classify it more strongly at this time.

Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. says,

“The existing science is very clear there is risk of cancer from cell phone use. The warning might have been 2A if there were a larger number of animal studies showing this, or if there were a larger number of up-to-date human studies. It’s important to recognize the Interphone study on which the classification to a large extent relied was completed in 2004, and current studies reflecting usage patterns today would be far more damning, possibly earning a Class 1 “Human Carcinogen.”

“Nonetheless, the IARC opinion is a breath of fresh air to many, and restores some integrity to a badly tarnished IARC … The IARC classification of cell phones as a ‘possible human carcinogen’ will now travel throughout the world, influencing governments far and wide, for the 1st time providing an official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents can legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices.”

“… for the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF is possibly carcinogenic to humans. One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as ‘gold standard’ in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim.