Evidence "increasingly against" phone cancer risk

LONDON Fri Jul 1, 2011 7:02pm EDT

Related Topics

LONDON (Reuters) - Despite a recent move to classify mobile phones as possibly carcinogenic, the scientific evidence increasingly points away from a link between their use and brain tumors, according to a new study on Saturday.

A major review of previously published research by a committee of experts from Britain, the United States and Sweden concluded there was no convincing evidence of any cancer connection.

It also found a lack of established biological mechanisms by which radio signals from mobile phones might trigger tumors.

"Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumors in adults," the experts wrote in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The latest paper comes just two months after the World Health Organisation's (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decided cellphone use should be classified as "possibly carcinogenic to humans."

Anthony Swerdlow of Britain's Institute of Cancer Research, who led the new review, told Reuters the two positions were not necessarily contradictory, since the IARC needed to put mobile phones into a pre-defined risk category.

"We are trying to say in plain English what we believe the relationship is. They (IARC) were trying to classify the risk according to a pre-set classification system," Swerdlow said.

Other things deemed by the IARC to be possibly carcinogenic include items as diverse as lead, pickled vegetables and coffee.

Mobile phone use has risen hugely since the early 1980s, with nearly 5 billion handsets in use today, and controversy about their potential link to the main types of brain tumor, glioma and meningioma, has never been far away.

The largest study to date, published last year, looked at almost 13,000 mobile phone users over 10 years.

Swerdlow and colleagues analyzed its results in detail but concluded it gave no clear answer and had several methodological problems, since it was based on interviews and asked subjects to recall phone use going back several years.

Significantly, other studies from several countries have shown no indication of increases in brain tumors up to 20 years after the introduction of mobile phones and 10 years after their use became widespread, they added.

Proving an absence of association is always far harder in science than finding one, and Swerdlow said it should become much clearer over the next few years whether or not there was any plausible link.

"This is a really difficult issue to research," said David Spiegelhalter, Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge, who was not involved in the study.

"But even given the limitations of the evidence, this report is clear that any risk appears to be so small that it is very hard to detect -- even in the masses of people now using mobile phones."

Swerdlow is chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's Standing Committee on Epidemiology. The commission is the international body, recognized by the WHO, that constructs guidelines for exposure limits for non-ionizing radiation.

Since mobile phones have become such a key part of daily life -- used by many for websurfing as well as talking -- industry experts say a health threat is unlikely to stop people using them.

(Reporting by Ben Hirschler; Editing by Will Waterman)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (6)
Joecynic wrote:
Isn’t that the same thing Science said about cigarettes before the warning labels came out.

Jul 02, 2011 7:25am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ThreeCubed27 wrote:
Yes, this is exactly what cigarette companies kept saying. “As evidence linking cigarettes and lung cancer mounted in the 1950s, the cigarette manufacturers funded the Tobacco Industry Research Commission (later to become the Tobacco Research Council) to look into the matter. This industry-funded group found no compelling evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between cigarettes and smoking, suggesting that many other factors may contribute, such as air pollution.”

1920′s: Medical reports appear that link smoking to lung cancer. However, these reports receive scant attention from newspaper editors who do not want to offend tobacco companies who advertised heavily in their media.

It takes another 40 years for the Medical Community in the US to speak out against it: 1964: Luther Terry, US Surgeon General, announces that smoking does cause lung cancer.

1994: In Congressional testimony, executives from seven of the biggest tobacco companies in the US swear (under oath) that nicotine is not addictive.

1998: In Congressional testimony, executives of tobacco companies admit that nicotine is addictive and that smoking can cause cancer.

So, if cell phones do cause cancer, history shows us it will be another 40-80 years before our society attempts to slow down such a profitable business.

Jul 02, 2011 2:25pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
trrll wrote:
There are two big differences from cigarette smoking:

1. For smoking there was epidemiological evidence of a problem–a spike in lung cancer incidence–whereas brain cancer incidence has remained quite stable as cell phone use massively increased. Brain cancer, like lung cancer in the absence of smoking, is fairly rare, so it should be a very sensitive indicator of risk.

2. For smoking there was a plausible mechanism: there are numerous reactive substances in smoke with the capacity to interact chemically with DNA. In contrast, it is difficult to conceive a plausible mechanism whereby which radio waves could cause cancer. The amount of energy in a radio frequency photon is much too small to produce any chemical modification of DNA–it is comparable to the amount of energy in the brownian collisions from water molecules that constantly bombard every part of the cell.

Jul 02, 2011 4:23pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.