Community Environmental Advisory Commission
AGENDA FOR REGULAR MEETING – THURSDAY APRIL 7TH 2011, 7:00 PM First Floor Conference Room, 2118 Milvia Street, Berkeley
I. Call to Order and Roll Call II. Action Minutes Review/Adoption: Review and adopt minutes from the meeting of 3/3/11 III. CEAC Action Tracker: None IV. Report from the Chair: Elections; Subcommittees V. Comments from the Public (3 minute limit) VI. Agenda Prioritization: Commissioners may request to re-arrange agenda VII. Reports from Subcommittees and Task Force Delegates: None VIII. Toxics Management Division Report: Update on inspections, staffing, funding and enforcement (where possible) for the Certified Unified Program (CUPA) remediation and stormwater programs IX. Discussion/Action: 1. Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) Disclosure for cell phones – Council referral a) Council Item re Disclosure of Cell Phone Radiation Output, dated December 14, 2010 b) National Cancer Institute (NCI) statement from Dr. Preetha Rajaraman and Dr. Martha Linet, “International Study Shows No Increased Risk of Brain Tumors from Cell Phone Use” c) NCI fact sheet from Dr. Preetha Rajaraman and Dr. Martha Linet, “Cell Phones and Cancer Risk” d) Abstract Compilation from Dr. Preetha Rajaraman and Dr. Martha Linet e) Letter from Dr. Joel Moskowitz re health effects of cell phone radiation (March, 23, 2011) f) Article from Dr. Joel Moskowitz, “Government must inform us of cell phone risk” (April 28, 2010) g) Article from Dr. Joel Moskowitz, “Cell phones affect brain activity, study says – Study finds no evidence of tumors or other consequences for health” (February 23, 2011)
Toxic Management Division – Planning and Development Department 2118 Milvia Street, Suite 300, Berkeley, California 94704 TEL: 510.981.7460 TDD: 510.981.6903 FAX: 510.981.7470 E-mail: [email protected]
Community Environmental Advisory Commission Meeting of April 7, 2011 Page 2 of 3
h) PowerPoint presentation from Dr. Joel Moskowitz, “Mobile Phone Use, Brain Tumor Risk and Public Health Policy” (November 18, 2010) i) Abstract Compilation from Dr. Joel Moskowitz j) Handout from Lloyd Morgan, “Three Cellphone Industry Sound-bites & More” k) Article from Ellen Marks: “Cell Phone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let’s Talk” (March 30, 2011) l) Handout from Commissioner Fred Schlachter: “Cell phones and brain cancer: a scientific view (March 30, 2011)
2. Discussion of Commissioner Priorities a) List of City of Berkeley Boards and Commissions b) Mission Statements of City of Berkeley Boards and Commissions Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) Disclosure for cell phones – Council referral Risk, Zoning and CEQA – Risk Management (McDonald/Banales) Biodiesel Recommendations to Council (Leventis/Mesbah-Bartlett) Other
X. Announcements from Commissioners (3 minute limit) XI. Communications to Commission XII. Information Items: Maybe moved to action by majority vote XIII. To be distributed XIV. Next Agenda: Discussion/Action items proposed for future agenda XV. Adjourn
PLEASE NOTE: PLEASE BE PREPARED TO EXTEND THE MEETING UNTIL 10:00PM, IF NEEDED
Communications Are Public Records: Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions or committees are public records and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: email addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your email address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Portal Service or in person to Commission Secretary Nabil Al-Hadithy. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the Commission Secretary Nabil Al-Hadithy for further information.
Community Environmental Advisory Commission Meeting of April 7, 2011 Page 3 of 3
SB 343 Disclaimer Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at Toxic Management Division, Planning Department located at 2118 Milvia St, 3rd Floor, 94704.
Please request information from Nabil Al-Hadithy, Secretary, at (510) 981-7460 or by email at [email protected]
This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at 981-6346 (V) or 981- 7075 (TDD) at least three business days before the meeting date.
Please refrain from wearing scented products to this meeting.
This page left intentionally blank
Community Environmental Advisory Commission
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES - COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMISSION Regular Meeting of March 3, 2011 2118 Milvia St, 1st Floor, Berkeley 94704
Call to Order and Roll Call: Meeting called to order at 7:10PM. Adjourned 9:30PM. Present: Greg Leventis (Chair), Brian McDonald, Juan Banales, Yelda Mesbah-Bartlett, Fred Schlachter, Karen Hernandez. Secretary: Geoff Fiedler, Clerical Aide: None. Beck Cowles received an excused absence.
Public Comment: (4 members of the public) Joy Brown, member of the public Merri Mitchell, member of the public Bill Ivie, member of the public, spoke to the biodiesel item Lloyd Morgan spoke supporting Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) notification for cell phones
Acting Secretary Report: None delivered. Report from the Chair: None delivered.
Commission Actions: 1. Minutes for Approval Recommendation: Adopt Minutes of February 3, 2010 Action: Motioned/ Seconded/Carried (Leventis/Banales). Votes: Ayes: Leventis, Banales, McDonald, Mesbah-Bartlett, Hernandez, Schlachter. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
2. Motion on West Berkeley Project Recommendation: Adopt the recommendations of the West Berkeley Project subcommittee and send to Council as an Information Item. Expand the definition of the term “sensitive population” to match the CEQA definition Define “incompatible uses” for both industrial and heavy traffic corridors Create or improve best management practices to be used by projects that can be accommodated in industrial and heavy traffic areas Include Public Health, Toxics Management, and the CEAC in all future decision making on major environmental and health risk-based planning and evaluations. Action: Motioned/Seconded/Carried (Schlachter/Leventis). Votes: Ayes: Leventis, Banales, McDonald, Schlachter, Mesbah-Bartlett, Hernandez. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
2118 Milvia Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, California 94704 ♦ TEL: (510) 981-7460 ♦ FAX: (510) 981-7470 ♦ TDD: (510) 981-6903 e-mail: [email protected]
Draft CEAC Minutes March 3, 2011 Page 2 of 2
3. Motion on City Community Risk Reduction Plan (CRRP) Recommendation: Advise Council that the CEAC has initiated the evaluation of a Community Risk Reduction Plan and will return by July 2011 to Council with an outline, implementation plan and cost/benefit analysis. Action: Motioned/Seconded/Carried (Schlachter/Leventis). Votes: Ayes: Leventis, Banales, McDonald, Schlachter, Mesbah-Bartlett, Hernandez. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
4. Motion on City Biodiesel Fuel Contract Recommendation: Direct the City Manager review the City’s biodiesel contract with Western States Oil for the following: 1) Whether the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS) index is the best standard for pricing biodiesel to achieve the best pricing for the City. 2) Whether the current supplier has a conflict of interest because one of their employees could have influence over the price standard. Action: Motioned/Seconded/Carried (Schlachter/Leventis). Votes: Ayes: Leventis, Banales, McDonald, Schlachter, Mesbah-Bartlett, Hernandez. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
5. Motion on Asbestos Referrals to EPA Recommendation: Direct the City Manager to Refer Asbestos Permitting Requirements for Demolitions to All Appropriate Air Regulation Agencies. Action: Motioned/Seconded/Carried (Schlachter/Leventis). Votes: Ayes: Leventis, Banales, McDonald, Schlachter, Mesbah-Bartlett, Hernandez. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
6. Other Actions Chair McDonald appointed the following subcommittees: 1) Specific Absorption Rate Subcommittee to consist of Schlachter, Mesbah-Bartlett, and Leventis. 2) GHG and Biodiesel Subcommittee: Schlachter, Mesbah-Bartlett and Leventis.
Discussion/Action Item 1a CEAC March 3, 2011
Max Anderson Councilmember District 3
CONSENT CALENDAR December 14, 2010
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Max Anderson Councilmember Laurie Capitelli Councilmember Susan Wengraf Councilmember Gordon Wozniak Subject: Disclosure of Cell Phone Radiation Output
RECOMMENDATION 1. Direct the City Manager to draft an ordinance (modeled after the San Francisco ordinance) requiring SAR disclosure for all cell phones available for sale or lease in the City of Berkeley and present to council for adoption within 60 days hereof.
2. Adopt a Resolution to refer to the Community Health Commission, the Community Environmental Advisory Commission, and the Youth Commission a request for information to provide recommendations for legislative actions providing potential buyers of cell phones (at the point-of-sale) information regarding disclosure of cell phone radiation output.
FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION NONE
BACKGROUND Cell phone use is now pervasive in the City of Berkeley, and landline phones are being abandoned. Since it is well established that high levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation have health effects, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established a maximum allowable Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) rating that manufacturers must disclose to the government when offering a portable wireless device (cell phone) for sale. Although there is no scientific consensus regarding potential health effects from long-term exposure to low levels, many studies have indicated potential harm. In accordance with the Precautionary Principle, many governments have issued warnings and advocated reduced exposures to RF radiations. Since the SAR values for different makes and models of cell phones differ widely, but consumers are not able to make informed purchasing decisions because there is no requirement that retailers provide the applicable SAR values at the point when the consumer is deciding between various makes and models. To allow consumers to make
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510 981-7130 Fax: 510 981-7133 E-Mail: [email protected] informed decisions regarding potential risks from RF radiations emitted from cell phones, Berkeley should require that the SAR values be disclosed for all cell phones being sold.
CONTACT PERSON Councilmember Max Anderson, District 3 510 981-7130
Attachment: Resolution
December 14, 2010
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF DISCLOSURE OF CELL PHONE RADIATION OUTPUT
WHEREAS, cell phone use is now pervasive in the City of Berkeley, and landline phones are being abandoned;
WHEREAS, since it is well established that high levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation have health effects, the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has established a maximum allowable Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) rating that manufacturers must disclose to the government when offering a portable wireless device (cell phone) for sale.
WHEREAS, although there is no scientific consensus regarding potential health effects from long-term exposure to low levels is less clear, many studies have indicated potential harm.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Precautionary Principle, many governments have issued warnings and advocated reduced exposures to RF radiations.
WHEREAS, since the SAR values for different makes and models of cell phones differ widely, but consumers are not able to make informed purchasing decisions because there is no requirement that retailers provide the applicable SAR values at the point when the consumer is deciding between various makes and models.
WHEREAS, to allow consumers to make informed decisions regarding potential risks from RF radiations emitted from cell phones, Berkeley should require that the SAR values be disclosed for all cell phones being sold.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council directs the City Manager to draft an ordinance (modeled after the San Francisco ordinance) requiring SAR disclosure for all cell phones available for sale or lease in the City of Berkeley and present to council for adoption within 60 days hereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Berkeley City Council directs the Community Health Commission, The Community Environmental Advisory Commission, and the Youth Commission to review the potential health effects of cell phone use and to recommend additional actions to be taken to insure the public’s right to know and enhance the public’s ability to make informed decisions regarding cell phone use. Such actions should include but not be limited to joint outreach with City of Berkeley staff, UC Berkeley students and staff, Berkeley Unified School District students and staff, local health providers, the YMCA, service groups, faith based organizations and other appropriate venues.
This page left intentionally blank Discussion/Action Item 1b CEAC April 7, 2011
Found at: http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/2011/Interphone2010Results
NCI Statement: International Study Shows No Increased Risk of Brain Tumors from Cell Phone Use
Interphone, an international collaboration, and the largest study of its kind to date, reported that overall, cell phone users have no increased risk of two of the most common forms of brain cancer -- glioma and meningioma. Furthermore, there was no evidence of risk with progressively increasing number of calls, longer call time, or time since the start of the use of cell phones. However, for the small proportion of study participants who used cell phones the most – measured as cumulative call time over their lifetime – there was a suggestion of increased risk of glioma, though the authors call this finding inconclusive. The study was published online May 17, 2010, in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
“While it is clear that research in this area will continue, this large-scale, long-term study contributes greatly to the body of scientific evidence about cell phones and brain cancer. Interphone also illustrates how difficult it is to identify and corroborate, or definitively rule out, any possible association between the two,” said National Cancer Institute (NCI) Director John E. Niederhuber, M.D. NCI is part of the National Institutes of Health. The investigators also say more studies are needed to assess risk associated with long-term heavy use, and risk for children and adolescents. The Interphone study focused on people ages 30 to 59, as they were expected to be the heaviest users of the devices. Interphone’s results are consistent with a NCI study of risk associated with use of analog cell phones, an older type of cell phone, from 1994 to 1998. Those study results, published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2001, found no association.
Results from other epidemiologic studies have been inconsistent and have not addressed adequately many questions regarding cancer and other adverse health effects of cell phone use, particularly among children or heavy or long-term users of cell phones. Interphone sought to address the effects of long-term use by pooling data from numerous studies to assemble a wide range of patterns of cell phone usage. As a result, the Interphone study comprises 13 countries worldwide, although not the United States, and collected data from over 5,000 brain tumor cases and healthy controls on the frequency, hours per month, and cumulative duration of use of cell phones. Interphone’s findings are also more relevant to digital phones, the most common type in use today worldwide.
“Interphone will be the most definitive study of cell phones and risk of brain and central nervous system tumors for some time to come,” said Martha S. Linet, M.D., chief of NCI’s radiation epidemiology branch. “Cell phone use is ubiquitous, not only in the United States, but around the world. Together with international research partners, NIH is fully exploring this important and common exposure, and continues to invest in research to further our understanding of the potential health effects of cell phone use.” Brain cancer incidence and mortality rates have changed little in the past decade. It is estimated that in the U.S. in 2009 there were 12,920 deaths due to brain cancer and 22,070 new cases diagnosed.
###
Reference: Cardis E, et al. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2010: 1-20. doi:10.1093/ije/dyq079. For a NCI Fact Sheet on cell phones and brain tumor risk, please go to http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones.
NCI leads the National Cancer Program and the NIH effort to dramatically reduce the burden of cancer and improve the lives of cancer patients and their families, through research into prevention and cancer biology, the development of new interventions, and the training and mentoring of new researchers. More information about cancer, screening, and prevention is available on the NCI Web site at http://www.cancer.gov or from NCI's Cancer Information Service at 1-800-4-CANCER (1-800-422-6237).
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) — The Nation's Medical Research Agency — includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. It is the primary federal agency for conducting and supporting basic, clinical and translational medical research, and it investigates the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.
Discussion/Action Item 1c CEAC April 7, 2011
Cell Phones and Cancer Risk
Key Points
• Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy, which is another name for radio waves (see Questions 1 and 2). • Research suggests that the amount of RF energy produced by cell phones is too low to cause significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature (see Question 2). • Concerns have been raised that RF energy from cell phones may pose a cancer risk to users (see Questions 1 and 2). • Researchers are studying tumors of the brain and central nervous system and other sites of the head and neck because cell phones are typically held next to the head when used (see Question 5). • Research studies have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancer. A large international study (Interphone) published in 2010 found that, overall, cell phone users have no increased risk for two of the most common types of brain tumor—glioma and meningioma. For the small proportion of study participants who reported spending the most total time on cell phone calls there was some increased risk of glioma, but the researchers considered this finding inconclusive (see Questions 6 and 7).
1. Why is there concern that cell phones may cause cancer or other health problems?
There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cell phones (also known as “wireless” or “mobile” telephones) may cause certain types of cancer or other health problems:
• Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that has been under study for many years for its effects on the human body (1).
• Cell phone use began in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is constantly evolving. The recent Interphone study is one of the few large studies of the effects of RF energy from cell phones on the human body.
• The number of cell phone users has increased rapidly. As of 2009, there were more than 285 million subscribers to cell phone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005.
For these reasons, it is important to learn whether RF energy from cell phones affects human health.
2. What is RF energy and how can it affect the body?
RF energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation.
Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into two types: Ionizing (high-frequency) and non-ionizing (low-frequency) (2). RF energy is a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-ray machines, can pose a cancer risk. There is currently no conclusive evidence that non-ionizing radiation emitted by cell phones is associated with cancer risk (2).
3.72 5/19/10 Page 1
Studies suggest that the amount of RF energy produced by cell phones is too low to cause significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature. However, more research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing RF energy has on the body and whether it poses a health danger (2).
3. How is a cell phone user exposed to RF energy?
A cell phone’s main source of RF energy is produced through its antenna. The antenna of newer hand-held cell phones is in the handset, which is typically held against the side of the head when the telephone is in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person’s expected exposure to RF energy. The amount of RF energy absorbed by a person decreases significantly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user. The intensity of RF energy emitted by a cell phone depends on the level of the signal (1).
When a call is placed from a cell phone, a signal is sent from the antenna of the phone to the nearest base station antenna. The base station routes the call through a switching center, where the call can be transferred to another cell phone, another base station, or the local land-line telephone system. The farther a cell phone is from the base station antenna, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. This distance determines, in part, the amount of RF energy exposure to the user.
4. What determines how much RF energy a cell phone user experiences?
A cell phone user’s level of exposure to RF energy depends on several factors, including:
• The number and duration of calls. • The amount of cell phone traffic at a given time. • The distance from the nearest cellular base station. • The quality of the cellular transmission. • The size of the handset. • For older phones, how far the antenna is extended. • Whether or not a hands-free device is used.
5. What parts of the body may be affected during cell phone use?
There is concern that RF energy produced by cell phones may affect the brain and other tissues in the head because hand-held cell phones are usually held close to the head. Researchers have focused on whether RF energy can cause malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas (cancers of the brain that begin in glial cells, which surround and support the nerve cells), as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors that arise in the cells of the nerve that supplies the ear) and meningiomas (tumors that occur in the meninges, which are the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord) (1). The salivary glands also may be exposed to RF energy from cell phones held close to the head.
6. What studies have been done, and what do they show?
Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between cell phone use and the risk of developing malignant and benign brain tumors.
The most significant study of long-term use is the 13-country Interphone study, which is a multinational consortium of case-control studies. Interphone was coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (3). The primary objective of the Interphone study was to assess whether RF energy exposure from cell phones is associated with an increased risk of malignant or benign brain tumors and other head and neck tumors. Participating countries included Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (4).
Interphone researchers reported that, overall, cell phone users have no increased risk for two of the most common types of brain tumor―glioma and meningioma. In addition, they found no evidence of increasing risk with progressively increasing number of calls, longer call time, or years since beginning cell phone use. For the small proportion of study participants who reported spending the most total time on cell phone calls, there was some increased risk of glioma, but the researchers considered this finding inconclusive. The study was published online May 17, 2010, in the International Journal of Epidemiology (5).
Additional studies have investigated the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma. Results from the majority of these studies have found no association between hand-held cell phone use and 3.72 5/19/10 Page 2
the risk of brain cancer (6–11); however, some, but not all, studies have suggested slightly increased risks for certain types of brain tumors (12, 13).
Two reports published in November 2004 by researchers from individual countries that participated in the Interphone study described the results of assessments of cell phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. One report described a Danish case-control study that showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long- term (10 years or more) cell phone users compared with short-term users, and there was no increase in the incidence of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (14). The other report described a Swedish study that examined similar populations and found a slightly elevated risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cell phone users but not in short-term users (15).
A pooled analysis of data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom did not find relationships between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the duration of cell phone use, cumulative hours of use, or number of calls; however, the risk of a tumor on the same side of the head as the reported phone use was higher among persons who had used a cell phone for 10 years or more. Some other studies have reported similar findings (16). However, there is concern that people with a tumor on one side of their head might be more likely to report phone use on that side (12).
Other reports from the Danish and Swedish researchers who collaborated in the Interphone study investigated whether a relationship exists between cell phone use and the risk of meningioma or glioma. These studies compared individuals with meningioma or glioma with a control group of disease-free individuals and found no link between these conditions and cell phone use (17, 18).
In addition, pooled analyses of data from four Nordic countries and the United Kingdom did not show overall associations between the risk of glioma or meningioma and the cumulative hours of cell phone use or the number of calls (19, 20). There was a slightly increased risk of glioma occurring on the same side of the head as the reported phone use among persons who used a cell phone for at least 10 years (19).
In an attempt to avoid the issue of biases associated with case-control studies, researchers defined a cohort of 420,095 persons in Denmark with cell phone subscriptions and linked this roster with the Danish Cancer Registry to identify brain tumors occurring in this population (10, 11). Cell phone use was not associated with glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among persons who had been subscribers for 10 or more years. Cell phone service subscription does not necessarily relate directly to cell phone use, duration, and frequency of use. A listed subscriber may not be the primary user of the phone. However, this type of prospective study has the advantage of not having to rely on people’s ability to remember past cell phone use.
Incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), show no increase in the age-adjusted incidence of brain and other nervous system cancers between 1987 and 2007, despite the dramatic increase in the use of cell phones (21). NCI continues to monitor cancer incidence data to detect any change in the rates of new cases of brain cancer. If cell phones play a role in the risk of brain cancer, one would expect to see an increase in rates because average monthly hours of cell phone use have increased regularly for the past decade in the United States.
There are very few studies of the possible relationship between cell phone use and tumors other than those of the brain and central nervous system (22–25).
7. What large studies has NCI conducted on cell phones and what have they found?
NCI began a comprehensive study of possible environmental and genetic causes of malignant and benign brain tumors in 1994. The findings were published in 2001 (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/cellphassoc) and were part of a comprehensive study to address a variety of possible risk factors for brain tumors. The study included 782 brain tumor cases and 799 controls from three medical institutions: St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and Western Pennsylvania Hospital in Pittsburgh. The study included brain tumor patients diagnosed with glioma (489 cases), meningioma (197 cases), or acoustic neuroma (96 cases). The control subjects were people who were admitted for a variety of non-cancerous conditions to the same hospitals as the brain tumor patients. The control subjects were matched with the case subjects by hospital, sex, race, age, and distance of residence from the hospital. The study was restricted to adults who were 18 or older who received care at one of the participating hospitals, resided within 50 miles of the hospital, and could understand English or Spanish. Data collection began in 1994 and was completed in 1998. 3.72 5/19/10 Page 3
The study found no indication of higher brain tumor risk among persons who had used hand-held cell phones compared with those who had not used them. More importantly, there was no evidence of increasing risk with increasing years of use or average minutes of use per day, nor did brain tumors among cell phone users tend to occur more often than expected on the side of the head on which the person reported using their phone. Specifically, there was no indication of increased risk associated with use of a cell phone for 1 hour or more per day, for 5 or more years, or for cumulative use of more than 100 hours. These findings pertain to all three tumor types considered (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma).
The results of this study pertain primarily to patterns of cell phone use in the United States during the early to mid-1990s. During the period of this study, there was no evidence that use of hand-held cell phones caused tumors of the brain and central nervous system. The findings suggest that, if there was any increase in risk, it was small, particularly for malignant tumors (glioma).
8. What studies are being done to help understand whether there is a biologic basis for cell phone radiation exposure to cause cancer?
Another part of the NIH, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), is carrying out a study of risks related to exposure to RF radiation (the type used in cell phones) in highly specialized labs that can specify and control sources of radiation and measure their effects on rodents.
9. Gliomas are the most common brain cancers being studied. What other brain tumors are being studied?
NCI’s Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) is funding a population-based, case-control study of meningioma (which accounts for up to 25 percent of all primary brain tumors) in Connecticut, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, and the San Francisco Bay area of California. This study represents the first concentrated effort to examine environmental and genetic risk factors for meningioma. The researchers are collecting information from 1,520 adults diagnosed with meningioma (case subjects) and 1,520 individuals without the disease (control subjects) matched by sex, age, and other characteristics to amass information on two main categories of risk—exposure to ionizing radiation and hormones—as well as on family history of the disease and other tumors, cell phone use, head trauma, outcome, and quality of life.
10. Why are the results of some, but not most, studies inconsistent?
The Interphone study suggests that overall there is no cancer risk from cell phones.
There are several reasons for the discrepancies between other studies:
• Information about cell phone use, including the frequency of use and the duration of calls, has largely been assessed through questionnaires. The completeness and accuracy of the data collected during such interviews is dependent on the memory of the responding individuals. In case-control studies, individuals with brain tumors may remember cell phone use differently from healthy individuals, which can result in a problem known as recall bias.
• Digital cell phones have been in common use for less than a decade in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (1). What was called 2G, or second-generation technology, was introduced in the United States in the 1990s. It was not until 3G, or third-generation technology, was introduced in 2001 that cell phone use became widely accepted in this country. Although older studies evaluated RF energy exposure from analog telephones, most cell phones today use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones.
• The interval between exposure to a carcinogen and the clinical onset of a tumor may be many years or decades. Scientists have been unable to monitor large numbers of cell phone users for the length of time it might take for brain tumors to develop (1).
• Epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about cumulative RF energy exposure over time (the total amount of RF energy individuals have encountered). These studies are also vulnerable to errors in the reporting of RF exposure by study participants (26, 27). In addition, study participation rates are frequently different between those with cancer and those without cancer in brain tumor studies, a problem known as participation bias. Some studies have indicated greater 3.72 5/19/10 Page 4
participation by individuals diagnosed with brain tumors compared with control subjects, and participation rates may be related to cell phone use.
• The use of “hands-free” wireless technology is increasing and may alter cell phone RF energy exposure.
With the publication of the Interphone study, research has fairly consistently demonstrated that there is not a link between cell phone use and cancer, but scientists caution that further surveillance, especially of heavy users and children and adolescents, is needed before definite conclusions can be drawn (1, 28).
11. Are any prospective studies or other types of studies that don’t involve recall bias being conducted?
A large, prospective cohort study of cell phone use and its possible long-term health effects was launched in Europe in March 2010. This study, known as COSMOS, will enroll approximately 250,000 cell phone users age 18 or older and will follow them for 20 to 30 years. Participants in COSMOS will complete a questionnaire about their health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use. This information will be supplemented with information from health records and cell phone records. More information about the COSMOS study is available at http://www.ukcosmos.org/index.html on the Internet.
Although recall bias is minimized in studies that link to cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the cell phone or whether they are using multiple phones and, to a lesser extent, if multiple users of a single phone are represented on one bill.
12. Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cell phone use than adults?
There are currently no data on cell phone use and risk of cancer in children. No published studies to date have included children. Cell phone use by children and adolescents is increasing rapidly, and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1). In addition, children may be at greater risk because their nervous systems are still developing at the time of exposure. A large case-control study of childhood brain cancer in several Northern European countries is in progress. Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting an international study—Mobi-Kids—to evaluate risk from new communications technologies (including cell phones) and other environmental factors in young people ages 10 to 24. More information about the Mobi-Kids study is available at http://www.mbkds.com on the Internet.
13. What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure to RF energy?
The Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have suggested some steps that cell phone users can take if they are concerned about potential health risks (2, 29):
• Reserve the use of cell phones for shorter conversations, or for times when a conventional phone is not available.
• Switch to a type of cell phone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the phone and the head of the user.
Hands-free kits reduce the amount of RF energy exposure to the head because the antenna, which is the source of RF energy, is not placed against the head.
14. Where can I find more information about RF energy from my cell phone?
The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed into the head of a cell phone user (30). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form, which is located at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid on the Internet.
15. What are other sources of RF energy?
The most common use of RF energy is for telecommunications (2). In the United States, cell phones currently operate in a frequency range of about 1,800 to 2,200 megahertz (MHz) (1). In this range, the 3.72 5/19/10 Page 5
electromagnetic radiation produced is in the form of non-ionizing RF energy. Cordless phones (phones that have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house) often operate at radio frequencies similar to those of cell phones; however, since cordless phones have a limited range and require a nearby base, their signals are generally much less powerful than those of cell phones. Among other RF energy sources, AM/FM radios and VHF/UHF televisions operate at lower radio frequencies than cell phones, whereas sources such as radar, satellite stations, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices, industrial equipment, and microwave ovens operate at somewhat higher radio frequencies (2).
16. How common is brain cancer and has the incidence of brain cancer changed over time?
Brain cancer incidence and mortality (death) rates have changed little in the past decade. In the United States, 22,070 new diagnoses and 12,920 deaths from brain cancer were estimated for 2009.
The 5-year survival rate for brain cancers diagnosed from 1999 to 2006 was 36.3 percent (21). This means that 36.3 out of every 100 persons diagnosed with brain cancer today will survive at least 5 years.
The risk of developing brain cancer increases with age; the incidence rate from 2003 to 2007 for people under age 65 was 4.6 for every 100,000 persons in the U.S. population, compared with 19.4 for every 100,000 persons age 65 or older (21).
Selected References
1. Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. Epidemiology of health effects on radiofrequency exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 2004; 112(17):1741–1754.
2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Radiation-Emitting Products: Reducing Exposure: Hands-free Kits and Other Accessories. Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation- EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm1 16293.htm.
3. Cardis E, Richardson L, Deltour I, et al. The INTERPHONE study: Design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study population. European Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 22(9):647–664.
4. International Agency for Research on Cancer (2008). INTERPHONE Study: Latest results update—8 October 2008. Lyon, France. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/research-groups/RAD/Interphone8oct08.pdf.
5. The INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2010; published online ahead of print May 17, 2010.
6. Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et al. Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344(2):79–86.
7. Hepworth SJ, Schoemaker MJ, Muir KR, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: Case-control study. British Medical Journal 2006; 332(7546):883–887.
8. Klaeboe L, Blaasaas KG, Tynes T. Use of mobile phones in Norway and risk of intracranial tumours. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2007; 16(2):158–164.
9. Takebayashi T, Varsier N, Kikuchi Y, et al. Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: A case-control study. British Journal of Cancer 2008; 98(3):652–659.
10. Johansen C, Boice Jr. JD, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. Cellular telephones and cancer: A nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001; 93(3):203–207.
11. Schuz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: Update of a nationwide Danish cohort. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006; 98(23):1707–1713.
3.72 5/19/10 Page 6
12. Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: Results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. British Journal of Cancer 2005; 93(7):842–848.
13. Hours M, Bernard M, Montestrucq L, et al. [Cell phones and risk of brain and acoustic nerve tumours: The French INTERPHONE case-control study.] Revue d'Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique 2007; 55(5):321–332.
14. Christensen HC, Schuz J, Kosteljanetz M, et al. Cellular telephone use and risk of acoustic neuroma. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159(3):277–283.
15. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology 2004; 15(6):653–659.
16. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours. International Journal of Oncology 2009; 35:5–17.
17. Christensen HC, Schuz J, Kosteljanetz M, et al. Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: A population-based, incident case-control study. Neurology 2005; 64(7):1189–1195.
18. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M, Swedish Interphone Study Group. Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 161(6):526–535.
19. Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in five North European countries. International Journal of Cancer 2007; 120(8):1769–1775.
20. Lahkola A, Salminen T, Raitanen J, et al. Meningioma and mobile phone use—a collaborative case-control study in five North European countries. International Journal of Epidemiology 2008; 37(6):1304–1313.
21. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2007. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007.
22. Stang A, Anastassiou G, Ahrens W, et al. The possible role of radiofrequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma. Epidemiology 2001; 12(1):7–12.
23. Linet MS, Taggart T, Severson RK, et al. Cellular telephones and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. International Journal of Cancer 2006; 119(10):2382–2388.
24. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Christensen HC, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006; 164(7):637–643.
25. Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Jarus-Hakak A, et al. Cellular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors—a nationwide case-control study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2008; 167(4):457–467.
26. Lahkola A, Salminen T, Auvinen A. Selection bias due to differential participation in a case-control study of mobile phone use and brain tumors. Annals of Epidemiology 2005; 15(5):321–325.
27. Vrijheid M, Deltour I, Krewski D, Sanchez M, Cardis E. The effects of recall errors and of selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2006; 16(4):371–384.
28. Ahlbom A, Feychting M, Green A, et al. Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk: A review. Epidemiology 2009; 20(5):639–652.
29. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (2009). Wireless. Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cellular.html.
30. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (2009). Cellular Telephone Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). Retrieved May 17, 2010, from: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar.
# # # 3.72 5/19/10 Page 7
Related NCI materials and Web pages:
• National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 3.46, Magnetic Field Exposure and Cancer: Questions and Answers (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/magnetic-fields) • Cancer Causes and Risk Factors Home Page (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/prevention-genetics-causes/causes)
How can we help?
We offer comprehensive research-based information for patients and their families, health professionals, cancer researchers, advocates, and the public.
• Call NCI’s Cancer Information Service at 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237) • Visit us at http://www.cancer.gov or http://www.cancer.gov/espanol • Chat using LiveHelp, NCI’s instant messaging service, at http://www.cancer.gov/livehelp • E-mail us at [email protected] • Order publications at http://www.cancer.gov/publications or by calling 1–800–4–CANCER • Get help with quitting smoking at 1–877–44U–QUIT (1–877–448–7848)
This fact sheet was reviewed on 5/19/10
3.72 5/19/10 Page 8 Discussion/Action Item 1d CEAC April 7, 2011 Abstract compilation from Dr. Preetha Rajaraman and Dr. Martha Linet from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health.
Epidemiologic Evidence on Mobile Phones and Tumor Risk: A Review Anders Ahlbom,a Maria Feychting,a Adele Green,b Leeka Kheifets,c David A. Savitz,d Anthony J. Swerdlow,e and ICNIRP (International Commission for Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology
Epidemiology • Volume 20, Number 5, September 2009
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 of Health Effects of Radiofrequency Exposure
ICNIRP (International Commission for Non‐Ionizing Radiation Protection) Standing Committee on Epidemiology:
Anders Ahlbom,1,2 Adele Green,3 Leeka Kheifets,4 David Savitz,5 and Anthony Swerdlow6 1Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; 2Stockholm Center for Public Health, Stockholm, Sweden; 3Epidemiology and Public Health Unit, Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane, Australia; 4Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, USA; 5Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA; 6Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom
Environmental Health Perspectives • VOLUME 112 | NUMBER 17 | December 2004
Abstract: We have undertaken a comprehensive review of epidemiologic studies about the effects of radiofrequency fields (RFs) on human health in order to summarize the current state of knowledge, explain the methodologic issues that are involved, and aid in the planning of future studies. There have been a large number of occupational studies over several decades, particularly on cancer, cardiovascular disease, adverse reproductive outcome, and cataract, in relation to RF exposure. More recently, there have been studies of residential exposure, mainly from radio and television transmitters, and especially focusing on leukemia. There have also been studies of mobile telephone users, particularly on brain tumors and less often on other cancers and on symptoms. Results of these studies to date give no consistent or convincing evidence of a causal relation between RF exposure and any adverse health effect. On the other hand, the studies have too many deficiencies to rule out an association. A key concern across all studies is the quality of assessment of RF exposure. Despite the ubiquity of new technologies using RFs, little is known about population exposure from RF sources and even less about the relative importance of different sources. Other cautions are that mobile phone studies to date have been able to address only relatively short lag periods, that almost no data are available on the consequences of childhood exposure, and that published data largely concentrate on a small number of outcomes, especially brain tumor and leukemia.
Cellular Telephone Use and Risk of Acoustic Neuroma Helle Collatz Christensen1, Joachim Schüz2, Michael Kosteljanetz3, Hans Skovgaard Poulsen4, Jens Thomsen5, and Christoffer Johansen1 1 Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2 Institute for Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Mainz, Mainz, Germany. 3 Neurosurgical Department, Neuroscience Centre, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 4 Department of Radiation Biology, Finsen Centre, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5 Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Hellerup, Denmark.
Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:277–283
Despite limited evidence, cellular telephones have been claimed to cause cancer, especially in the brain. In this Danish study, the authors examined the possible association between use of cellular telephones and development of acoustic neuroma. Between 2000 and 2002, they ascertained 106 incident cases and matched these persons with 212 randomly sampled, population‐based controls on age and sex. The data obtained included information on use of cellular telephones from personal interviews, data from medical records, and the results of radiologic examinations. The authors obtained information on socioeconomic factors from Statistics Denmark. The overall estimated relative risk of acoustic neuroma was 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.51, 1.57). Use of a cell phone for 10 years or more did not increase acoustic neuroma risk over that of short‐term users. Furthermore, tumors did not occur more frequently on the side of the head on which the telephone was typically used, and the size of the tumor did not correlate with the pattern of cell phone use. The results of this prospective, population‐based, nationwide study, which included a large number of long‐term users of cellular telephones, do not support an association between cell phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma.
Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: A population‐based, incident case‐control study H. Collatz Christensen, MD; J. Schüz, PhD; M. Kosteljanetz, DMSc, MD; H. Skovgaard Poulsen, DMSc, MD; J.D. Boice, Jr., ScD; J.K. McLaughlin, PhD; and C. Johansen, PhD, DMSc, MD
NEUROLOGY 2005;64:1189–1195
Abstract— Objective: To evaluate a possible association of glioma or meningioma with use of cellular telephones, using a nationwide population‐based case–control study of incident cases of meningioma and glioma. Methods: The authors ascertained all incident cases of glioma and meningioma diagnosed in Denmark between September 1, 2000, and August 31, 2002. They enrolled 252 persons with glioma and 175 persons with meningioma aged 20 to 69. The authors also enrolled 822 randomly sampled, population based controls matched for age and sex. Information was obtained from personal interviews, medical records containing diagnoses, and the results of radiologic examinations. For a small number of cases and controls, the authors obtained the numbers of incoming and outgoing calls. They evaluated the memory of the respondents with the Mini‐Mental State Examination and obtained data on socioeconomic factors from Statistics Denmark. Results: There were no material socioeconomic differences between cases and controls or participants and nonparticipants. Use of cellular telephone was associated with a low risk for high‐grade glioma (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.90). The risk estimates were closer to unity for low‐grade glioma (1.08; 0.58 to 2.00) and meningioma (1.00; 0.54 to 1.28). Conclusion: The results do not support an association between use of cellular telephones and risk for glioma or meningioma.
Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours LENNART HARDELL and MICHAEL CARLBERG Department of Oncology, Orebro University Hospital, SE‐701 85 Orebro, Sweden
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 35: 5‐17, 2009
Abstract. The Hardell‐group conducted during 1997‐2003 two case control studies on brain tumours including assessment of use of mobile phones and cordless phones. The questionnaire was answered by 905 (90%) cases with malignant brain tumours, 1,254 (88%) cases with benign tumours and 2,162 (89%) population‐based controls. Cases were reported from the Swedish Cancer Registries. Anatomical area in the brain for the tumour was assessed and related to side of the head used for both types of wireless phones. In the current analysis we defined ipsilateral use (same side as the tumour) as ≥50% of the use and contralateral use (opposite side) as <50% of the calling time. We report now further results for use of mobile and cordless phones. Regarding astrocytoma we found highest risk for ipsilateral mobile phone use in the >10 year latency group, OR=3.3, 95% CI=2.0‐5.4 and for cordless phone use OR=5.0, 95% CI=2.3‐11. In total, the risk was highest for cases with first use <20 years age, for mobile phone OR=5.2, 95% CI=2.2‐12 and for cordless phone OR=4.4, 95% CI=1.9‐10. For acoustic neuroma, the highest OR was found for ipsilateral use and >10 year latency, for mobile phone OR=3.0, 95% CI=1.4‐6.2 and cordless phone OR=2.3, 95% CI=0.6‐8.8. Overall highest OR for mobile phone use was found in subjects with first use at age <20 years, OR=5.0, 95% CI 1.5‐16 whereas no association was found for cordless phone in that group, but based on only one exposed case. The annual age‐adjusted incidence of astrocytoma for the age group >19 years increased significantly by +2.16%, 95% CI +0.25 to +4.10 during 2000‐2007 in Sweden in spite of seemingly underreporting of cases to the Swedish Cancer Registry. A decreasing incidence was found for acoustic neuroma during the same period. However, the medical diagnosis and treatment of this tumour type has changed during recent years and underreporting from a single center would have a large impact for such a rare tumour.
Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case‐control study Sarah J Hepworth, Minouk J Schoemaker, Kenneth R Muir, Anthony J Swerdlow, Martie J A van Tongeren, Patricia A McKinney
BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38720.687975.55 (published 20 January 2006)
Abstract Objective To investigate the risk of glioma in adults in relation to mobile phone use. Design Population based case‐control study with collection of personal interview data. Setting Five areas of the United Kingdom. Participants 966 people aged 18 to 69 years diagnosed with a glioma from 1 December 2000 to 29 February 2004 and 1716 controls randomly selected from general practitioner lists. Main outcome measures Odds ratios for risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use. Results The overall odds ratio for regular phone use was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.13). There was no relation for risk of glioma and time since first use, lifetime years of use, and cumulative number of calls and hours of use. A significant excess risk for reported phone use ipsilateral to the tumour (1.24, 1.02 to 1.52) was paralleled by a significant reduction in risk (0.75, 0.61 to 0.93) for contralateral use. Conclusions Use of a mobile phone, either in the short or medium term, is not associated with an increased risk of glioma. This is consistent with most but not all published studies. The complementary positive and negative risks associated with ipsilateral and contralateral use of the phone in relation to the side of the tumour might be due to recall bias.
Colorectal cancers in Martinique: incidence and mortality rates over a period of 20 years P. Ngasseua,b,*, M. Dieyea,b, J. Veronique‐Baudina,b, C. Draganescua, M.‐J. Dorivalb, M. Ossondoc, J. Smith‐Ravind, H. Azalouxa,b a Service de médecine nucléaire oncologie, CHU de Fort‐de‐France, GREFCC, université des Antilles‐ Guyane, Martinique b Registre des cancers de la Martinique, AMREC, le Lamentin, Martinique c Service d’anatomopathologie, CHU de Fort‐de‐France, Martinique d UFR des sciences exactes, campus de Fouillole, Pointe‐à‐Pitre, GREFCC, université des Antilles‐Guyane, Guadeloupe
Revue d’Épidémiologie et de Santé Publique 55 (2007) 333–338
Abstract Background. – Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in Western countries, with an incidence progressively increasing in developing countries. Worldwide, colorectal cancer is the second and third leading cause of death by cancer in females and males respectively. According to the Martinique Cancer Register data, colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of death by cancer in women, and the fourth in men. Colorectal cancer exhibits a variable distribution worldwide. This study was conducted to observe variations in colorectal incidence and mortality rates observed over a twenty‐ year period. Such data will be useful for monitoring changing trends related to onset of an organized screening program. Method. – Patients with colorectal cancer diagnosed from 1981 to 2000 in Martinique were included in this study. Data are obtained from the Martinique Cancer Register. Results. – The incidence of colorectal cancer in Martinique (16/100,000 and 17/100,000 in the female and male population respectively in the year 2000) is intermediary compared with other countries worldwide. There is a current trend towards increased incidence and mortality. The incidence has increased for cancers localized in the proximal colon, the sigmoid colon and the rectum. Conclusion. – The increasing incidence of colorectal cancer in all localisations raises concern in Martinique. A significant predominance of colorectal cancer incidence among the male population in Martinique was not observed. Gender and age do not appear to imply any preferential localisation of colorectal cancer.
CELLULAR‐TELEPHONE USE AND BRAIN TUMORS PETER D. INSKIP, SC .D., ROBERT E. TARONE, PH.D., ELIZABETH E. HATCH, PH.D., TIMOTHYC. WILCOSKY, PH.D.,WILLIAMR. SHAPIRO, M.D., ROBERTG. SELKER, M.D., HOWARDA. FINE, M.D., PETERM. BLACK, M.D.,JAYS. LOEFFLER, M.D.,AND MARTHAS.LINET, M.D.
N Engl J Med, Vol. 344, No. 2
ABSTRACT Background Concern has arisen that the use of hand‐held cellular telephones might cause brain tumors. If such a risk does exist, the matter would be of considerable public health importance, given the rapid increase worldwide in the use of these devices. Methods We examined the use of cellular telephones in a case–control study of intracranial tumors of the nervous system conducted between 1994 and 1998. We enrolled 782 patients through hospitals in Phoenix, Arizona; Boston; and Pittsburgh; 489 had histologically confirmed glioma, 197 had meningioma, and 96 had acoustic neuroma. The 799 controls were patients admitted to the same hospitals as the patients with brain tumors for a variety of nonmalignant conditions. Results As compared with never, or very rarely, having used a cellular telephone, the relative risks associated with a cumulative use of a cellular telephone for more than 100 hours were 0.9 for glioma (95 percent confidence interval, 0.5 to 1.6), 0.7 for meningioma (95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 1.7), 1.4 for acoustic neuroma (95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 3.5), and 1.0 for all types of tumors combined (95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 1.5). There was no evidence that the risks were higher among persons who used cellular telephones for 60 or more minutes per day or regularly for five or more years. Tumors did not occur disproportionately often on the side of head on which the telephone was typically used. Conclusions These data do not support the hypothesis that the recent use of hand‐held cellular telephones causes brain tumors, but they are not sufficient to evaluate the risks among long‐term, heavy users and for potentially long induction periods. (N Engl J Med 2001;344:79‐86.)
Brain cancer incidence trends in relation to cellular telephone use in the United States Peter D. Inskip, Robert N. Hoover, and Susan S. Devesa Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (P.D.I., R.N.H., S.S.D.)
Neuro‐Oncology doi:10.1093/neuonc/noq077
The use of cellular telephones has grown explosively during the past two decades, and there are now more than 279 million wireless subscribers in the United States. If cellular phone use causes brain cancer, as some suggest, the potential public health implications could be considerable. One might expect the effects of such a prevalent exposure to be reflected in general population incidence rates, unless the induction period is very long or confined to very long‐term users. To address this issue, we examined temporal trends in brain cancer incidence rates in the United States, using data collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program. Log‐linear models were used to estimate the annual percent change in rates among whites. With the exception of the 20–29‐year age group, the trends for 1992–2006 were downward or flat. Among those aged 20–29 years, there was a statistically significant increasing trend between 1992 and 2006 among females but not among males. The recent trend in 20–29‐year‐old women was driven by a rising incidence of frontal lobe cancers. No increases were apparent for temporal or parietal lobe cancers, or cancers of the cerebellum, which involve the parts of the brain that would be more highly exposed to radiofrequency radiation from cellular phones. Frontal lobe cancer rates also rose among 20–29‐year‐old males, but the increase began earlier than among females and before cell phone use was highly prevalent. Overall, these incidence data do not provide support to the view that cellular phone use causes brain cancer.
Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case–control study: The INTERPHONE Study Group* *Author list lengthy, included in appendix Corresponding author. Elisabeth Cardis; CREAL, Doctor Aiguader 88, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. E‐mail: [email protected]
International Journal of Epidemiology 2010;39:675–694 doi:10.1093/ije/dyq079
Background The rapid increase in mobile telephone use has generated concern about possible health risks related to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields from this technology. Methods An interview‐based case–control study with 2708 glioma and 2409 meningioma cases and matched controls was conducted in 13 countries using a common protocol. Results A reduced odds ratio (OR) related to ever having been a regular mobile phone user was seen for glioma [OR 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70–0.94] and meningioma (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68–0.91), possibly reflecting participation bias or other methodological limitations. No elevated OR was observed 510 years after first phone use (glioma: OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.76–1.26; meningioma: OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.61– 1.14). ORs were <1.0 for all deciles of lifetime number of phone calls and nine deciles of cumulative call time. In the 10th decile of recalled cumulative call time, 51640 h, the OR was 1.40 (95% CI 1.03–1.89) for glioma, and 1.15 (95% CI 0.81–1.62) for meningioma; but there are implausible values of reported use in this group. ORs for glioma tended to be greater in the temporal lobe than in other lobes of the brain, but the CIs around the lobe‐specific estimates were wide. ORs for glioma tended to be greater in subjects who reported usual phone use on the same side of the head as their tumour than on the opposite side. Conclusions Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long‐term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.
The INTERPHONE study: design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study population Elisabeth Cardis , Lesley Richardson , Isabelle Deltour , Bruce Armstrong , Maria Feychting , Christoffer Johansen , Monique Kilkenny , Patricia McKinney , Baruch Modan , Siegal Sadetzki , Joachim Schu¨z , Anthony Swerdlow , Martine Vrijheid , Anssi Auvinen , Gabriele Berg , Maria Blettner , Joseph Bowman , Julianne Brown , Angela Chetrit , Helle Collatz Christensen , Angus Cook , Sarah Hepworth , Graham Giles , Martine Hours , Ivano Iavarone , Avital Jarus‐Hakak , Lars Klaeboe , Daniel Krewski , Susanna Lagorio , Stefan Lo¨nn , Simon Mann , Mary McBride , Kenneth Muir , Louise Nadon , Marie‐Elise Parent , Neil Pearce , Tiina Salminen , Minouk Schoemaker , Brigitte Schlehofer , Jack Siemiatycki , Masao Taki , Toru Takebayashi , Tore Tynes , Martie van Tongeren , Paolo Vecchia , Joe Wiart , Alistair Woodward , Naohito Yamaguchi
Eur J Epidemiol (2007) 22:647–664 DOI 10.1007/s10654‐007‐9152‐z
Abstract. The very rapid worldwide increase in mobilephone use in the last decade has generated considerable interest in the possible health effects of exposure to radio frequency (RF) fields. A multinational case–control study, INTERPHONE, was set‐up to investigate whether mobile phone use increases the risk of cancer and, more specifically, whether the RF fields emitted by mobile phones are carcinogenic. The study focused on tumours arising in the tissues most exposed to RF fields from mobile phones: glioma, meningioma, acoustic neurinoma and parotid gland tumours. In addition to a detailed history of mobile phone use, information was collected on a number of known and potential risk factors for these tumours. The study was conducted in 13 countries. Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the UK using a common core protocol. This paper describes the study design and methods and the main characteristics of the study population. INTERPHONE is the largest case–control study to date investigating risks related to mobile phone use and to other potential risk factors for the tumours of interest and includes 2,765 glioma, 2,425 meningioma, 1,121 acoustic neurinoma, 109 malignant parotid gland tumour cases and 7,658 controls. Particular attention was paid to estimating the amount and direction of potential recall and participation biases and their impact on the study results.
Cellular Telephones and Cancer—a Nationwide Cohort Study in Denmark Christoffer Johansen, John D. Boice, Jr., Joseph K. McLaughlin, Jørgen H. Olsen
Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 93, No. 3, February 7, 2001
Background: Use of cellular telephones is increasing exponentially and has become part of everyday life. Concerns about possible carcinogenic effects of radiofrequency signals have been raised, although they are based on limited scientific evidence. Methods: A retrospective cohort study of cancer incidence was conducted in Denmark of all users of cellular telephones during the period from 1982 through 1995. Subscriber lists from the two Danish operating companies identified 420 095 cellular telephone users. Cancer incidence was determined by linkage with the Danish Cancer Registry. All statistical tests are two‐sided. Results: Overall, 3391 cancers were observed with 3825 expected, yielding a significantly decreased standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.86 to 0.92). A substantial proportion of this decreased risk was attributed to deficits of lung cancer and other smoking related cancers. No excesses were observed for cancers of the brain or nervous system (SIR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.81 to 1.12) or of the salivary gland (SIR = 0.72; 95% CI = 0.29 to 1.49) or for leukemia (SIR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.78–1.21), cancers of a priori interest. Risk for these cancers also did not vary by duration of cellular telephone use, time since first subscription, age at first subscription, or type of cellular telephone (analogue or digital). Analysis of brain and nervous system tumors showed no statistically significant SIRs for a y subtype or anatomic location. Conclusions: The results of this investigation, the first nationwide cancer incidence study of cellular phone users, do not support the hypothesis of an association between use of these telephones and tumors of the brain or salivary gland, leukemia, or other cancers.
Use of mobile phones in Norway and risk of intracranial tumours Lars Klaeboea, Karl Gerhard Blaasaasb and Tore Tynesa,c
European Journal of Cancer Prevention 16:158–164
To test the hypothesis that exposure to radio‐frequency electromagnetic fields from mobile phones increases the incidence of gliomas, meningiomas and acoustic neuromas in adults. The incident cases were of patients aged 19–69 years who were diagnosed during 2001–2002 in Southern Norway. Population controls were selected and frequency matched for age, sex, and residential area. Detailed information about mobile phone use was collected from 289 glioma (response rate 77%), 207 meningioma patients (71%), and 45 acoustic neuroma patients (68%) and from 358 (69%) controls. For regular mobile phone use, defined as use on average at least once a week or more for at least 6 months, the odds ratio was 0.6 (95% confidence interval 0.4–0.9) for gliomas, 0.8 (95% confidence interval 0.5– 1.1) for meningiomas and 0.5 (95% confidence interval 0.2–1.0) for acoustic neuromas. Similar results were found with mobile phone use for 6 years or more for gliomas and acoustic neuromas. An exception was meningiomas, where the odds ratio was 1.2 (95% confidence interval 0.6–2.2). Furthermore, no increasing trend was observed for gliomas or acoustic neuromas by increasing duration of regular use, the time since first regular use or cumulative use of mobile phones. The results from the present study indicate that use of mobile phones is not associated with an increased risk of gliomas, meningiomas or acoustic neuromas.
Selection Bias Due to Differential Participation in a Case–Control Study of Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumors ANNA LAHKOLA, MSC, TIINA SALMINEN, PHD, AND ANSSI AUVINEN, MD, PHD
Ann Epidemiol 2005;15:321–325.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the possible selection bias related to the differential participation of mobile phone users and non‐users in a Finnish case–control study on mobile phone use and brain tumors. METHODS: Mobile phone use was investigated among 777 controls and 726 cases participating in the full personal interview (full participants), and 321 controls and 103 cases giving only a brief phone interview (incomplete participants). To assess selection bias, the Mantel‐Haenszel estimate of odds ratio was calculated for three different groups: full study participants, incomplete participants, and a combined group consisting of both full and incomplete participants. RESULTS: Among controls, 83% of the full participants and 73% of the incomplete participants had regularly used a mobile phone. Among cases, the figures were 76% and 64%, respectively. The odds ratio for brain tumor based on the combined group of full and incomplete participants was slightly closer to unity than that based only on the full participants. CONCLUSIONS: Selection bias tends to distort the effect estimates below unity, while analyses based on more comprehensive material gave results close to unity.
Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries Anna Lahkola1*, Anssi Auvinen1,2, Jani Raitanen1,2, Minouk J. Schoemaker3, Helle C. Christensen4, Maria Feychting5, Christoffer Johansen4, Lars Kl,boe6, Stefan L€onn5, Anthony J. Swerdlow3, Tore Tynes6,7 and Tiina Salminen1,2 1STUK, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, Helsinki, Finland 2Tampere School of Public Health, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland 3Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Sutton 4Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark 5Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden 6Institute of Population‐Based Cancer Research, The Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway 7Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, Østera˚ s, Norway
Int. J. Cancer: 120, 1769–1775 (2007)
Abstract. Public concern has been expressed about the possible adverse health effects of mobile telephones, mainly related to intracranial tumors. We conducted a population‐based case–control study to investigate the relationship between mobile phone use and risk of glioma among 1,521 glioma patients and 3,301 controls. We found no evidence of increased risk of glioma related to regular mobile phone use (odds ratio, OR 5 0.78, 95%confidence interval, CI: 0.68, 0.91). No significant association was found across categories with duration of use, years since first use, cumulative number of calls or cumulative hours of use. When the linear trend was examined, the OR for cumulative hours of mobile phone use was 1.006 (1.002, 1.010) per 100 hr, but no such relationship was found for the years of use or the number of calls.We found no increased risks when analogue and digital phones were analyzed separately. For more than 10 years of mobile phone use reported on the side of the head where the tumor was located, an increased OR of borderline statistical significance (OR 5 1.39, 95% CI 1.01, 1.92, p trend 0.04) was found, whereas similar use on the opposite side of the head resulted in an OR of 0.98 (95%CI 0.71, 1.37). Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long‐term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn.
Meningioma and mobile phone use—a collaborative case‐control study in five North European countries A Lahkola,1* T Salminen,1,2 J Raitanen,1,2 S Heina¨vaara,1 MJ Schoemaker,3 H Collatz Christensen,4 M Feychting,5 C Johansen,4 L Kl,boe,6,7 S Lo¨nn,5 AJ Swerdlow,3 T Tynes6,7 and A Auvinen1,2
International Journal of Epidemiology 2008;37:1304–1313
Background Use of mobile telephones has been suggested as a possible risk factor for intracranial tumours. To evaluate the effect of mobile phones on risk of meningioma, we carried out an international, collaborative case‐control study of 1209 meningioma cases and 3299 population‐based controls. Methods Population‐based cases were identified, mostly from hospitals, and controls from national population registers and general practitioners’ patient lists. Detailed history of mobile phone use was obtained by personal interview. Regular mobile phone use (at least once a week for at least 6 months), duration of use, cumulative number and hours of use, and several other indicators of mobile phone use were assessed in relation to meningioma risk using conditional logistic regression with strata defined by age, sex, country and region. Results Risk of meningioma among regular users of mobile phones was apparently lower than among never or non‐regular users (odds ratio, OR¼0.76, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.65, 0.89). The risk was not increased in relation to years since first use, lifetime years of use, cumulative hours of use or cumulative number of calls. The findings were similar regardless of telephone network type (analogue/digital), age or sex. Conclusions Our results do not provide support for an association between mobile phone use and risk of meningioma.
Cellular telephones and non‐Hodgkin lymphoma Martha S. Linet1*, Theresa Taggart2, Richard K. Severson3, James R. Cerhan4,5, Wendy Cozen6, Patricia Hartge1 and Joanne Colt1 1Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MA 2Division of Public Health Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 3Epidemiology Section, Karmanos Cancer Institute, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI 4Department of Preventive Medicine and Environmental Health, College of Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 5Department of Health Sciences Research, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN 6Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Int. J. Cancer: 119, 2382–2388 (2006)
Dramatic increase in hand‐held cellular telephone use since the 1980s and excess risk of lymphoproliferative malignancies associated with radio‐frequency radiation (RFR) exposures in epidemiological and experimental studies motivated assessment of cellular telephones within a comprehensive US case–control investigation of non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). A questionnaire ascertained cellular telephone use in 551 NHL cases and 462 frequency‐matched population controls. Compared to persons who had never used cellular telephones, risks were not increased among individuals whose lifetime use was fewer than 10 (odds ratio (OR) 5 0.9, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.6, 1.3), 10–100 (OR 5 1.0, 95 % CI: 0.7, 1.5) or more than 100 times (e.g., regular users, OR 5 0.9, 95% CI: 0.6, 1.4). Among regular users compared to those who had never used hand‐held cellular telephones, risks of NHL were not significantly associated with minutes per week, duration, cumulative lifetime or year of first use, although NHL was non‐significantly higher in men who used cellular telephones for more than 8 years. Little evidence linked use of cellular telephones with total, diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma or follicular NHL. These findings must be interpreted in the context of less than 5% of the population reporting duration of use of 6 or more years or lifetime cumulative use of 200 or more hours.
Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma
Stefan Lo¨nn,* Anders Ahlbom,* Per Hall,† and Maria Feychting*
Epidemiology 2004;15: 653–659
Background: Radiofrequency exposure from mobile phones is concentrated to the tissue closest to the handset, which includes the auditory nerve. If this type of exposure increases tumor risk, acoustic neuroma would be a potential concern. Methods: In this population‐based case‐control study we identified all cases age 20 to 69 years diagnosed with acoustic neuroma during 1999 to 2002 in certain parts of Sweden. Controls were randomly selected from the study base, stratified on age, sex, and residential area. Detailed information about mobile phone use and other environmental exposures was collected from 148 (93%) cases and 604 (72%) controls. Results: The overall odds ratio for acoustic neuroma associated with regular mobile phone use was 1.0 (95% confidence interval _0.6 –1.5). Ten years after the start of mobile phone use the estimates relative risk increased to 1.9 (0.9–4.1); when restricting to tumors on the same side of the head as the phone was normally used, the relative risk was 3.9 (1.6 –9.5). Conclusions: Our findings do not indicate an increased risk of acoustic neuroma related to short‐term mobile phone use after a short latency period. However, our data suggest an increased risk of acoustic neuroma associated with mobile phone use of at least 10 years’ duration.
Long‐Term Mobile Phone Use and Brain Tumor Risk Stefan Lo¨nn1, Anders Ahlbom1, Per Hall2, Maria Feychting1, and the Swedish Interphone Study Group 1 Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2 Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
American Journal of Epidemiology
Handheld mobile phones were introduced in Sweden during the late 1980s. The purpose of this population‐based, case‐control study was to test the hypothesis that long‐term mobile phone use increases the risk of brain tumors. The authors identified all cases aged 20–69 years who were diagnosed with glioma or meningioma during 2000–2002 in certain parts of Sweden. Randomly selected controls were stratified on age, gender, and residential area. Detailed information about mobile phone use was collected from 371 (74%) glioma and 273 (85%) meningioma cases and 674 (71%) controls. For regular mobile phone use, the odds ratio was 0.8 (95% confidence interval: 0.6, 1.0) for glioma and 0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.5, 0.9) for meningioma. Similar results were found for more than 10 years’ duration of mobile phone use. No risk increase was found for ipsilateral phone use for tumors located in the temporal and parietal lobes. Furthermore, the odds ratio did not increase, regardless of tumor histology, type of phone, and amount of use. This study includes a large number of long‐term mobile phone users, and the authors conclude that the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma.
Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Parotid Gland Tumor Stefan Lo¨nn1, Anders Ahlbom1, Helle C. Christensen2, Christoffer Johansen2, Joachim Schu¨ z2, Staffan Edstro¨m3, Gert Henriksson4, Jan Lundgren4, Johan Wennerberg5, and Maria Feychting1 1 Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2 Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark. 3 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Go¨ teborg, Sweden. 4 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 5 Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.
American Journal of Epidemiology
Handheld mobile phones were introduced in Denmark and Sweden during the late 1980s. This makes the Danish and Swedish populations suitable for a study aimed at testing the hypothesis that long‐term mobile phone use increases the risk of parotid gland tumors. In this population‐based case‐control study, the authors identified all cases aged 20–69 years diagnosed with parotid gland tumor during 2000–2002 in Denmark and certain parts of Sweden. Controls were randomly selected from the study population base. Detailed information about mobile phone use was collected from 60 cases of malignant parotid gland tumors (85% response rate), 112 benign pleomorphic adenomas (88% response rate), and 681 controls (70% response rate). For regular mobile phone use, regardless of duration, the risk estimates for malignant and benign tumors were 0.7 (95% confidence interval: 0.4, 1.3) and 0.9 (95% confidence interval: 0.5, 1.5), respectively. Similar results were found for more than 10 years’ duration of mobile phone use. The risk estimate did not increase, regardless of type of phone and amount of use. The authors conclude that the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of parotid gland tumors.
Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors—A Nationwide Case‐Control Study Siegal Sadetzki1,2, Angela Chetrit1, Avital Jarus‐Hakak1, Elisabeth Cardis3, Yonit Deutch1, Shay Duvdevani4, Ahuva Zultan1, Ilya Novikov5, Laurence Freedman5, and Michael Wolf2,4 1 Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Unit, Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. 2 Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. 3 Radiation Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France. 4 Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. 5 Biostatistics Unit, Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel.
American Journal of Epidemiology
The objective of this nationwide study was to assess the association between cellular phone use and development of parotid gland tumors (PGTs). The methods were based on the international INTERPHONE study that aimed to evaluate possible adverse effects of cellular phone use. The study included 402 benign and 58 malignant incident cases of PGTs diagnosed in Israel at age 18 years or more, in 2001–2003, and 1,266 population individually matched controls. For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio ¼ 0.87; p ¼ 0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated. However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g., heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks. For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands‐free devices were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively. The risk for contralateral use was not significantly different from 1. A positive dose‐response trend was found for these measurements. Based on the largest number of benign PGT patients reported to date, our results suggest an association between cellular phone use and PGTs.
Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case– control study in five North European countries MJ Schoemaker*,1, AJ Swerdlow1, A Ahlbom2,13, A Auvinen3,10, KG Blaasaas4, E Cardis5, H Collatz Christensen6, M Feychting2, SJ Hepworth7, C Johansen6, L Kl,boe8, S Lo¨nn2, PA McKinney7, K Muir9, J Raitanen10, T Salminen3, J Thomsen11 and T Tynes8,12 1Section of Epidemiology, Institute of Cancer Research, Brookes Lawley Building, Sutton SM2 5NG, UK; 2Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Box 210, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden; 3STUK‐Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, 00881 Helsinki, Finland; 4Norwegian Armed Forces, Bygning 0028A, Sessvollmoen 2058, Norway; 5International Agency for Research on Cancer, 150 Cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Cedex 08, Lyon, France; 6Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark; 7Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Leeds, 30 Hyde Terrace, Leeds LS2 9LN, UK; 8The Cancer Registry of Norway, Institute of Population‐based Cancer Research, Montebello, 0310 Oslo, Norway; 9Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK; 10Tampere School of Public Health, University of Tampere, Tampere 33014, Finland; 11Department of Otolaryngology‐ Head and Neck Surgery, Gentofte Hospital, University of Copenhagen, DK‐2900 Hellerup, Denmark; 12Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, PO Box 55, 1332 Osteras, Norway
British Journal of Cancer (2005) 93, 842–848. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6602764
There is public concern that use of mobile phones could increase the risk of brain tumours. If such an effect exists, acoustic neuroma would be of particular concern because of the proximity of the acoustic nerve to the handset. We conducted, to a shared protocol, six population‐based case–control studies in four Nordic countries and the UK to assess the risk of acoustic neuroma in relation to mobile phone use. Data were collected by personal interview from 678 cases of acoustic neuroma and 3553 controls. The risk of acoustic neuroma in relation to regular mobile phone use in the pooled data set was not raised (odds ratio (OR)¼0.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.7–1.1). There was no association of risk with duration of use, lifetime cumulative hours of use or number of calls, for phone use overall or for analogue or digital phones separately. Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as reported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR¼1.8, 95% CI: 1.1–3.1). The study suggests that there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade after starting mobile phone use. However, an increase in risk after longer term use or after a longer lag period could not be ruled out.
Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk: Update of a Nationwide Danish Cohort
Joachim Schüz , Rune Jacobsen , Jørgen H. Olsen , John D. Boice Jr , Joseph K. McLaughlin , Christoffer Johansen
J Natl Cancer Inst 2006;98: 1707 – 13
Background: The widespread use of cellular telephones has heightened concerns about possible adverse health effects. The objective of this study was to investigate cancer risk among Danish cellular telephone users who were followed for up to 21 years. Methods: This study is an extended follow‐up of a large nationwide cohort of 420 095 persons whose fi rst cellular telephone subscription was between 1982 and 1995 and who were followed through 2002 for cancer incidence. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated by dividing the number of observed cancer cases in the cohort by the number expected in the Danish population. Results: A total of 14 249 cancers were observed (SIR = 0.95; 95% confi dence interval [CI] = 0.93 to 0.97) for men and women combined. Cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (SIR = 0.97), acoustic neuromas (SIR = 0.73), salivary gland tumors (SIR = 0.77), eye tumors (SIR = 0.96), or leukemias (SIR = 1.00). Among long‐term subscribers of 10 years or more, cellular telephone use was not associated with increased risk for brain tumors (SIR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.44 to 0.95), and there was no trend with time since fi rst subscription. The risk for smoking‐related cancers was decreased among men (SIR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.86 to 0.91) but increased among women (SIR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.21). Additional data on income and smoking prevalence, primarily among men, indicated that cellular telephone users who started subscriptions in the mid‐1980s appeared to have a higher income and to smoke less than the general population. Conclusions: We found no evidence for an association between tumor risk and cellular telephone use among either short‐term or longterm users. Moreover, the narrow confi dence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded.
The Possible Role of Radiofrequency Radiation in the Development of Uveal Melanoma Andreas Stang,1 Gerasimos Anastassiou,2 Wolfgang Ahrens,1,3 Katja Bromen,1 Norbert Bornfeld,2 and Karl‐Heinz Jöckel1
Epidemiology 2001;12:7–12
There are few epidemiologic studies dealing with electromagnetic radiation and uveal melanoma. The majority of these studies are exploratory and are based on job and industry titles only. We conducted a hospital‐based and population‐based case‐control study of uveal melanoma and occupational exposures to different sources of electromagnetic radiation, including radiofrequency radiation. We then pooled these results. We interviewed a total of 118 female and male cases with uveal melanoma and 475 controls matching on sex, age, and study regions. Exposure to radiofrequency‐transmitting devices was rated as (a) no radiofrequency radiation exposure, (b) possible exposure to mobile phones, or (c) probable/certain exposure to mobile phones. Exposures were rated independently by two of the authors who did not know case or control status. We used conditional logistic regression to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). We found an elevated risk for exposure to radiofrequency‐transmitting devices (exposure to radio sets, OR 5 3.0, 95% CI 5 1.4–6.3; probable/certain exposure to mobile phones, OR 5 4.2, 95% CI 5 1.2–14.5). Other sources of electromagnetic radiation such as high‐voltage lines, electrical machines, complex electrical environments, visual display terminals, or radar units were not associated with uveal melanoma. This is the first study describing an association between radiofrequency radiation exposure and uveal melanoma. Several methodologic limitations prevent our results from providing clear evidence on the hypothesized association.
Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: a case–control study T Takebayashi1, N Varsier2,3, Y Kikuchi1, K Wake3, M Taki2, S Watanabe3, S Akiba4 and N Yamaguchi*,5 1Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan; 2Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Tokyo Metropolitan University, Tokyo, Japan; 3EMC Group, Applied Electromagnetic Engineering, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Tokyo, Japan; 4Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Kagoshima; 5Department of Public Health, Tokyo Women’s Medical University, Tokyo 162‐8666, Japan
British Journal of Cancer (2008) 98, 652–659. doi:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604214
In a case–control study in Japan of brain tumours in relation to mobile phone use, we used a novel approach for estimating the specific absorption rate (SAR) inside the tumour, taking account of spatial relationships between tumour localisation and intracranial radiofrequency distribution. Personal interviews were carried out with 88 patients with glioma, 132 with meningioma, and 102 with pituitary adenoma (322 cases in total), and with 683 individually matched controls. All maximal SAR values were below 0.1Wkg_1, far lower than the level at which thermal effects may occur, the adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for regular mobile phone users being 1.22 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63–2.37) for glioma and 0.70 (0.42–1.16) for meningioma. When the maximal SAR value inside the tumour tissue was accounted for in the exposure indices, the overall OR was again not increased and there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to SAR‐derived exposure indices. A non‐significant increase in OR among glioma patients in the heavily exposed group may reflect recall bias.
The effects of recall errors and of selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk MARTINE VRIJHEIDa, ISABELLE DELTOURa, DANIEL KREWSKIa,b, MARIE SANCHEZa AND ELISABETH CARDISa aInternational Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France bMcLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2006) 16, 371–384. doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500509
This paper examines the effects of systematic and random errors in recall and of selection bias in case– control studies of mobile phone use and cancer. These sensitivity analyses are based on Monte–Carlo computer simulations and were carried out within the INTERPHONE Study, an international collaborative case–control study in 13 countries. Recall error scenarios simulated plausible values of random and systematic, non‐differential and differential recall errors in amount of mobile phone use reported by study subjects. Plausible values for the recall error were obtained from validation studies. Selection bias scenarios assumed varying selection probabilities for cases and controls, mobile phone users, and non‐users. Where possible these selection probabilities were based on existing information from non‐respondents in INTERPHONE. Simulations used exposure distributions based on existing INTERPHONE data and assumed varying levels of the true risk of brain cancer related to mobile phone use. Results suggest that random recall errors of plausible levels can lead to a large underestimation in the risk of brain cancer associated with mobile phone use. Random errors were found to have larger impact than plausible systematic errors. Differential errors in recall had very little additional impact in the presence of large random errors. Selection bias resulting from underselection of unexposed controls led to J‐shaped exposure–response patterns, with risk apparently decreasing at low to moderate exposure levels. The present results, in conjunction with those of the validation studies conducted within the INTERPHONE study, will play an important role in the interpretation of existing and future case–control studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk, including the INTERPHONE study.
Discussion/Action Item 1e CEAC April 7, 2011
March 23, 2011
Dear Mr. Al‐Haidithy,
I understand that the Community Environmental Advisory Commission is interested in the health effects of cell phone radiation. I would greatly appreciate it if you would share this message with the Commissioners.
Having co‐authored a review of the epidemiologic research about mobile phone use and tumor risk published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology (abstract below), I would strongly encourage the City of Berkeley to provide its residents with precautionary health warnings about how to use their cell phones safely. Our research team found that mobile phone use was associated with increased tumor risk, especially brain tumor risk among those who used cell phones 10 years or longer. Another research review published in Surgical Neurology arrived at a similar conclusion (abstract below). In addition to the case‐control studies that find evidence of increased brain tumor risk including the 13‐nation Interphone study, there are eight studies that find evidence of damage to human sperm. Thus, there appears to be short‐term, as well as long‐term, health effects due to cell phone radiation exposure.
Over the past year and a half, I have done dozens of interviews with the media about our research, the Interphone study, and a recent study about increased brain activity after cell phone radiation exposure (see below). Last Fall I did a presentation at the Commonwealth Club that Commissioners may find of interest (see link to 15 minute video and slides).
Although I recognize that the science is not yet conclusive, my colleagues and I believe the evidence is sufficient to warrant precautionary health warnings at this time (see link to SF Chronicle op‐ed).
If some Commissioners are skeptical about the epidemiologic and toxicologic research because cell phone radiation is non‐ionizing and does not have strong thermal effects, I recommend they read a paper by Behari that reviews the research on biologic responses (abstract below). This research suggests that the pulsing or modulation of the signal, rather than the microwave carrier itself, may be the critical factor.
Please let me know if you would like pdfs of these papers.
Sincerely,
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D.
Myung SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, Lee YJ, Kazinets G, Cheng CT, Moskowitz JM. Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2009 Nov 20; 27(33):5565‐5572. Epub 2009 Oct 13.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Case‐control studies have reported inconsistent findings regarding the association between mobile phone use and tumor risk. We investigated these associations using a meta‐ analysis.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library in August 2008. Two evaluators independently reviewed and selected articles based on predetermined selection criteria.
RESULTS: Of 465 articles meeting our initial criteria, 23 case‐control studies, which involved 37,916 participants (12,344 patient cases and 25,572 controls), were included in the final analyses. Compared with never or rarely having used a mobile phone, the odds ratio for overall use was 0.98 for malignant and benign tumors (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.07) in a random‐effects meta‐analysis of all 23 studies. However, a significant positive association (harmful effect) was observed in a random‐ effects meta‐analysis of eight studies using blinding, whereas a significant negative association (protective effect) was observed in a fixed‐effects meta‐analysis of 15 studies not using blinding. Mobile phone use of > or = 10 years or longer was associated with a risk of tumors in 13 studies reporting this association (odds ratio = 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.34). Further, these findings were also observed in the subgroup analyses by methodologic quality of study. Blinding and methodologic quality of study were strongly associated with the research group.
CONCLUSION: The current study found that there is possible evidence linking mobile phone use to an increased risk of tumors from a meta‐analysis of low‐biased case‐control studies. Prospective cohort studies providing a higher level of evidence are needed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19826127
===
Khurana VG, Teo C, Kundi M, Hardell L, Carlberg M. Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long‐term epidemiologic data. Surgical Neurology. 2009 Sep;72(3):205‐14; discussion 214‐5. Epub 2009 Mar 27.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The debate regarding the health effects of low‐intensity electromagnetic radiation from sources such as power lines, base stations, and cell phones has recently been reignited. In the present review, the authors attempt to address the following question: is there epidemiologic evidence for an association between long‐term cell phone usage and the risk of developing a brain tumor? Included with this meta‐analysis of the long‐term epidemiologic data are a brief overview of cell phone technology and discussion of laboratory data, biological mechanisms, and brain tumor incidence.
METHODS: In order to be included in the present meta‐analysis, studies were required to have met all of the following criteria: (i) publication in a peer‐reviewed journal; (ii) inclusion of participants using cell phones for > or = 10 years (ie, minimum 10‐year "latency"); and (iii) incorporation of a "laterality" analysis of long‐term users (ie, analysis of the side of the brain tumor relative to the side of the head preferred for cell phone usage). This is a meta‐analysis incorporating all 11 long‐term epidemiologic studies in this field.
RESULTS: The results indicate that using a cell phone for 10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same ("ipsilateral") side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.
CONCLUSION: The authors conclude that there is adequate epidemiologic evidence to suggest a link between prolonged cell phone usage and the development of an ipsilateral brain tumor. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19328536
===
Cell Phones & Brain Tumors‐What Does the Science Show?
Joel Moskowitz, Commonwealth Club of California, November 18, 2010
Presentation (15 minute video): http://vimeo.com/17266112
Slides: http://electromagnetichealth.org/wp‐content/uploads/2010/11/Moskowitz‐Mo bile_Phone_Use__Brain_Tumor_Risk_CC_11‐18‐10_ver_1jr.ppt http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic‐health‐blog/cc‐video/
===
Government must inform us of cell phone risk
Joel M. Moskowitz, Open Forum, San Francisco Chronicle, April 28, 2010 http://sfgate.com/cgi‐bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/28/EDMB1D58TC.DTL
===
Cell phones affect brain activity, study says
Erin Allday, San Francisco Chronicle, February 23, 2011, page A ‐ 1 http://articles.sfgate.com/2011‐02‐23/news/28620757_1_cell‐phones‐phone‐ use‐and‐brain‐brain‐tumors
===
Behari J. Biological responses of mobile phone frequency exposure. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology. 2010 Oct;48(10):959‐81.
Abstract
Existence of low level electromagnetic fields in the environment has been known since antiquity and their biological implications are noted for several decades. As such dosimetry of such field parameters and their emissions from various sources of mass utilization has been a subject of constant concern. Recent advancement in mobile communications has also drawn attention to their biological effects. Hand held children and adults alike generally use mobile sources as cordless phones in various positions with respect to the body. Further, an increasing number of mobile communication base stations have led to wide ranging concern about possible health effects of radiofrequency emissions. There are two distinct possibilities by which health could be affected as a result of radio frequency field exposure. These are thermal effects caused by holding mobile phones close to the body and extended conversations over a long period of time. Secondly, there could be possibly non thermal effects from both phones and base stations whereby the affects could also be cumulative. Some people may be adversely affected by the environmental impact of mobile phone base stations situated near their homes, schools or any other place. In addition to mobile phones, appliances like microwave oven etc are also in increasing use. Apart from the controversy over the possible health effects due to the non‐thermal effect of electromagnetic fields the electromagnetic interaction of portable radio waves with human head needs to be quantitatively evaluated. Relating to this is the criteria of safe exposure to the population at large. While a lot of efforts have gone into resolving the issue, a clear picture has yet to emerge. Recent advances and the problems relating to the safety criteria are discussed. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21299039 http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/10341
======Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley 50 University Hall Berkeley, CA 94720‐7360
Phone: 510‐643‐7314 Fax: 510‐643‐7316 E‐mail: [email protected] WWW: http://cfch.berkeley.edu
Discussion/Action Item 1f CEAC April 7, 2011
Government must inform us of cell phone risk
Joel M. Moskowitz
San Francisco Chronicle
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
A huge, 30-year study called COSMOS has been launched in Europe to determine whether cell phones cause cancer and other health problems. Meanwhile, policymakers in Sacramento are considering legislation to ensure people know how much radiation their cell phones emit. The wireless industry vigorously opposes such legislation. It argues that its phones comply with regulations, and there is no consensus about risks so people don't need to know this. Our research review published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology found alarming results to the contrary.
We reviewed 23 case-control studies that examined tumor risk due to cell phone use. Although as a whole the data varied, among the 10 higher quality studies, we found a harmful association between phone use and tumor risk. The lower quality studies, which failed to meet scientific best practices, were primarily industry funded.
The 13 studies that investigated cell phone use for 10 or more years found a significant harmful association with tumor risk, especially for brain tumors, giving us ample reason for concern about long-term use.
Do federal regulations adequately protect the public? The 1996 Federal Communications Commission regulations are based upon the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), a measure of heat generated by six minutes of cell phone exposure in an artificial model that represents a 200- pound man's brain. Although every cell phone model has a SAR, the industry doesn't make it easy to find it. Moreover, children, and adults who weigh less than 200 pounds, are exposed to more radiation than our government deems "safe."
It is time to revamp the FCC regulations. Laboratory scientists have found harmful effects from cell phones that emit less radiation than the FCC standard. Moreover, some scientists believe that cell phones' heat transfer is not what we should fear. These researchers have found that variation in the frequencies emitted by cell phones may be hazardous.
We should address this issue proactively even if we do not fully understand its magnitude. Our government has faced similar public health threats in the past. In 1965, although there was no scientific consensus about the harmful effects of cigarettes, Congress required a precautionary warning label on cigarette packages: "Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health." More specific warnings were not required until 1984: "Smoking Causes Lung Cancer, Heart Disease, Emphysema, And May Complicate Pregnancy."
Should we have waited 19 years until absolutely certain before we informed the public about these risks? Although more research on cell phone radiation is needed, we cannot afford to wait. There are 285 million cell phones in use in this country, and two-thirds of children over the age of seven use them. Manufacturers bury the SAR within their owner's manuals, along with safety instructions to keep your phone up to an inch away from your body.
Nine nations have issued precautionary warnings. It is time for our government to require health warnings and publicize simple steps to reduce the health risks of cell phone use.
Joel M. Moskowitz is director of the Center for Family and Community Health in UC Berkeley's School of Public Health. Diana McDonnell and Gene Kazinets collaborated on this commentary and the research review. To see five ways to use your cell phone safely, go to http://sfg.ly/c0Fy9y.
Discussion/Action Item 1g CEAC April 7, 2011
Cell phones affect brain activity, study says - Study finds no evidence of tumors or other consequences for health
SFGate, February 23, 2011
A 50-minute cell phone call causes a noticeable increase in brain activity in the area of the head closest to the phone's antenna, a finding by government researchers that could reinforce concerns, or at least raise new questions, about the long-term health effects of cell phones.
The study by the National Institutes of Health is one of the first, and the most prominent, to offer scientific evidence that cell phones affect brain metabolism. Results were published in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Scientists involved with the study said it's far too early to draw conclusions about whether electromagnetic radiation emitted by cell phones can cause tumors - one major concern among some scientists and doctors - or have any other negative health consequences. But their results demonstrate a need for further research.
"Unfortunately, our findings do not enlighten in any way this controversy on whether cell phones produce cancer. What they do say is that the human brain is sensitive to this electromagnetic radiation," said Dr. Nora Volkow, a director with the National Institutes of Health and lead researcher for the study. "Whether this electromagnetic radiation has any negative consequences, that is something that needs to be properly evaluated."
Dozens of small studies on the topic have found some correlation between long-term cell phone use and brain tumors, but most research has found no connection to cancers or any other diseases. In response to the new study, the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry noted that research so far has "overwhelmingly indicated" that cell phones and other wireless devices are safe.
But some researchers and laypeople who worry about the widespread use of cell phones say the majority of studies haven't been thorough enough, and it could be a decade or two before industrialized nations see dramatic health consequences.
Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley, said he's not convinced that cell phones are dangerous, but he is frustrated with the pervasive refusal by many scientists to seriously consider the possibility. He hopes the latest study - and its association with the National Institutes of Health and publication in one of the country's major scientific journals - will give credibility to the need to look deeper.
"This study establishes that cell phones do indeed have biologic reactivity on the brain. The (wireless) industry and scientific community seems reluctant to hear that," Moskowitz said. "I'm hoping this study will force policymakers to take this issue much more seriously and begin to encourage research in this area." In the NIH study, which had 47 participants, cell phones were placed next to both ears while the subjects underwent brain imaging using positron emission tomography (PET scans). Participants were given an injection of glucose to measure brain activity; brain cells use glucose as a source of energy.
Subjects were scanned twice, once with both cell phones turned off, and once with the right cell phone turned on and connected to a call, but set on mute. Neither the participants nor the researchers knew when the cell phones were off or on.
"Because the brain uses glucose when it's activated, we interpreted this to mean that the electromagnetic waves were activating the cells," Volkow said. "This type of activation by itself we don't expect to have harmful effects. The question that remains to be studied is could there be long-term consequences from long-term stimulation."
Dr. Mitch Berger, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at UCSF, agreed that the study demonstrates a need for further research. But he also noted that the effects on the brain weren't especially worrying.
Brain metabolism simply means the neurons have been stimulated - a PET scan would show similar readings if someone was asked to perform a simple task like conjugating a verb - and there's no evidence that increased brain activity is damaging, even over a long period of time, he said.
"It is a provocative study because it has shown that there is an alteration of brain metabolism. But I'm not convinced in any way, shape or form that it means something," Berger said. "I don't think you can extrapolate this to assume there's a health hazard here."
That said, he said he recognizes that almost everyone uses cell phones these days, and people are naturally curious, or even worried, about the effects of that practice on their health. With that in mind, he and other scientists, even many skeptics, recommend a simple solution: headsets.
"I don't think people should be panicked or change their usage," Berger said. "But putting distance between the device and the side of your head is a reasonable, prudent strategy until we see what happens 10 to 20 years from now."
Discussion/Action Item 1h CEAC April 7, 2011
Mobile Phone Use, Brain Tumor Risk and Public Health Policy
JlMMkJoel M. Moskowi tz, Ph PhDDi.D., Director Center for Family and Community School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley The Commonwealth Club November 18, 2010 Overview
• Review studies of mobile phone use and tumor risk • Results of 2010 Interphone Study paper • Trends in cell phone use in U.S. • Public health ppypolicy options Meta-analysis: publication
• Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(33):5565-72. 2009.
– Seung-Kwon Myung, National Cancer Center, S. Korea – Woong Ju, Ewha Womans University, S. Korea – Yeon Li Gee, Seoul National Univ. Hospital, S. Korea – Chih-Tao Cheng, Koo Foundation Sun Yat-Sen Cancer Center, Taiwan – Diana McDonnell, Gene Kazinets, and Joel M. Moskowitz, UC Berkeley
http://jco.ascopubs.org/content/27/33/5565.abstract Meta-analysis: study selection
• One cohort study – No association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk – Weak study • 23 case-control studies – 37,916 participants—12,344 patient cases & 25, 572 con tro ls Meta-analysis: case-control study
• What is a case-control study? – Compare “cases” to matched “controls.” – Determine if characteristics differ between 2 groups. – “Exposure” is mobile phone use. – Compute Odds Ratio (OR) • (Odds of having tumor for people using phones) ÷ (Odds of having tumor for people not using phones) – OR interpreted as Relative Risk • < 1 = reduced risk , 1 = no risk , > 1 = increased risk Meta-analysis: overall tumor risk
• Overall no association between mobile phone use & tumor risk (OR = 0 .98 ; n = 23 s tu dies )
– High research quality–increased tumor risk - govt. or foundation-funded (()OR=1.17; n = 8) - Low research quality–reduced tumor risk - mostly industry-funded (OR = 0.85; n=15) Meta-analysis: brain tumor risk for 10+ years mobile phone use
• Overall increased brain tumor risk (OR = 1.24; n = 8)
- Higgqh qualit y – increased risk; Hardell (OR = 1.54; n = 4) - Low quality – no risk; Interphone (OR =1.00; n = 4) Meta-analysis: lessons learned
• Know • Don’t Know? – Increased brain tumor – Longer durations risk for 10+ years – Heavier use – Results vary – Children & teens • Research quality – 2005 and beyond • Research group – Other tumors & health – 1994–2004 risks Interphone study
• 13 na tion case-contltdtrol study – funded by World Health Org. & Industry ($25 million) • 2010 - overall results for 2 brain tumors reported – meningioma (n = 2,409) and glioma (n = 2,708) – 2000-2004 - data collected – average lifeti me cell p hone use < 100 hours • Numerous shortcomings bias – Reduce estimates of tumor risk Interphone study: results
• Meningioma Risk • Glioma Risk
– Any regular use -- – Any regular use -- reduced risk reduced risk – After bias • likely due to bias correction no risk – Heavy use (1,640+ hrs) -- increased risk (()OR=1.40) • replicates in 44 tests • greater after bias correction (OR= 1. 82) – Dose-response relationship w/ more years of use • after bias correction 10-yr risk (OR=2.18) Tumor risk for 10+ yrs. cell phone use by study group & tumor type
3 ? Relative 2 Risk ? of Tumor 1 Interphone ? Hardell 0 Acoustic Meningioma Glioma Neuroma Tumor Type
Relative Risk: < 1 = protective, 1 = no risk, > 1 = harmful Interphone results from Appendix 2 Table (corrects for bias) Mobile Phone Use in U.S.
1985 -- 203,000 U.S. government position
U. S. Food and Drug Administration, May 2010 Public health policy options
• U.S. govt. position – Cell phones meet safety standards – Wait for conclusive evidence – Invest in minimal research funding
• Our position – Precautionaryyp princip le • Harm reduction approach • Safe use recommendations • Precautionaryyg health warnings • Update safety standards – Call for major government research funding initiative Precautionary Principle Policy: Precautionary warnings
HP1207, LD 1706, 124th Maine State Legislature, 2009-2010 An Act To Create the Children's Wireless Protection Act Policy: independent research Contact information
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., Director Center for Family and Community School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley [email protected]
A CDC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Discussion/Action Item 1i CEAC April 7, 2011
Research on the Effects of Cell Phone Radiation on Human Sperm
Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D. Center for Family and Community Health School of Public Health University of California, Berkeley March 3, 2011
Summary
The following terms were used in a PubMed search: (cell or mobile) phone sperm. Fourteen English-language, papers were found that examined the effects of cell phone radiation on human sperm including nine original studies and five review papers.
Eight of the nine original studies reported adverse effects of cell phone radiation on at least one of four outcomes: sperm count (C), motility (M), viability (V) or morphology (S). The adverse effects obtained in these studies were as follows: C/M/V/S (Agarwal et al., 2008a); M/V (Agarwal et al., 2009; De Iuliis et al., 2009); M/S (Wdowiak et al, 2007); M (Erogul et al, 2006; Fejes et al., 2005); and S (Falzone et al., 2008; Falzone et al., 2011). The ninth study examined sperm for signs of pre-apoptosis but found no evidence for this mechanism (Falzone et al., 2010). Cell phone radiation was associated with decreased sperm motility (M) in six of the eight studies that assessed this outcome. The next most commonly observed effect was reduced viability (V) in three studies. Note that not all studies measured each of these four outcomes.
The research abstracts from the search follow. The original studies are in the first section followed by the review papers. The abstracts are listed in alphabetical order by first author.
1
Original Research Studies
Agarwal A, Deepinder F, Sharma RK, Ranga G, Li J. (2008a). Effect of cell phone usage on semen analysis in men attending infertility clinic: an observational study. Fertil Steril. 2008 Jan; 89(1):124-8. Epub 2007 May 4.
Reproductive Research Center, Glickman Urological Institute and Department of Obstetrics-Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of cell phone use on various markers of semen quality.
DESIGN: Observational study.
SETTING: Infertility clinic.
PATIENT(S): Three hundred sixty-one men undergoing infertility evaluation were divided into four groups according to their active cell phone use: group A: no use; group B: <2 h/day; group C: 2-4 h/day; and group D: >4 h/day.
INTERVENTION(S): None.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Sperm parameters (volume, liquefaction time, pH, viscosity, sperm count, motility, viability, and morphology).
RESULT(S): The comparisons of mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology among four different cell phone user groups were statistically significant. Mean sperm motility, viability, and normal morphology were significantly different in cell phone user groups within two sperm count groups. The laboratory values of the above four sperm parameters decreased in all four cell phone user groups as the duration of daily exposure to cell phones increased.
CONCLUSION(S): Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.
PMID: 17482179
Agarwal A, Desai NR, Makker K, Varghese A, Mouradi R, Sabanegh E, Sharma R. (2009). Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2009 Oct;92(4):1318-25. Epub 2008 Sep 20.
Center for Reproductive Medicine, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
2
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate effects of cellular phone radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) during talk mode on unprocessed (neat) ejaculated human semen.
DESIGN: Prospective pilot study.
SETTING: Center for reproductive medicine laboratory in tertiary hospital setting.
SAMPLES: Neat semen samples from normal healthy donors (n = 23) and infertile patients (n = 9).
INTERVENTION(S): After liquefaction, neat semen samples were divided into two aliquots. One aliquot (experimental) from each patient was exposed to cellular phone radiation (in talk mode) for 1 h, and the second aliquot (unexposed) served as the control sample under identical conditions.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Evaluation of sperm parameters (motility, viability), reactive oxygen species (ROS), total antioxidant capacity (TAC) of semen, ROS-TAC score, and sperm DNA damage.
RESULT(S): Samples exposed to RF-EMW showed a significant decrease in sperm motility and viability, increase in ROS level, and decrease in ROS-TAC score. Levels of TAC and DNA damage showed no significant differences from the unexposed group.
CONCLUSION(S): Radiofrequency electromagnetic waves emitted from cell phones may lead to oxidative stress in human semen. We speculate that keeping the cell phone in a trouser pocket in talk mode may negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility.
PMID: 18804757
De Iuliis GN, Newey RJ, King BV, Aitken RJ. Mobile phone radiation induces reactive oxygen species production and DNA damage in human spermatozoa in vitro. PLoS One. 2009 Jul 31;4(7):e6446.
ARC Centre of Excellence in Biotechnology and Development, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent times there has been some controversy over the impact of electromagnetic radiation on human health. The significance of mobile phone radiation on male reproduction is a key element of this debate since several studies have suggested a relationship between mobile phone use and semen quality. The potential mechanisms involved have not been established, however, human spermatozoa are known to be particularly vulnerable to oxidative stress by virtue of the abundant availability of substrates for free radical attack and the lack of cytoplasmic space to accommodate antioxidant enzymes. Moreover, the induction of oxidative stress in these cells not only perturbs their capacity for fertilization but also contributes to sperm DNA damage. The latter has, in turn, been linked with poor fertility, an increased incidence of miscarriage and morbidity in the offspring, including childhood cancer. In light of these associations, we have analyzed the influence of RF-EMR on the cell biology of human spermatozoa in vitro.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Purified human spermatozoa were exposed to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) tuned to 1.8 GHz and covering a range of specific absorption rates (SAR) from 0.4 W/kg to 27.5 W/kg. In step with increasing SAR, motility and vitality were significantly reduced after RF-EMR exposure, while the mitochondrial generation of reactive oxygen species and DNA
3 fragmentation were significantly elevated (P<0.001). Furthermore, we also observed highly significant relationships between SAR, the oxidative DNA damage bio-marker, 8-OH-dG, and DNA fragmentation after RF-EMR exposure.
CONCLUSIONS: RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring.
PMID: 19649291
Erogul O, Oztas E, Yildirim I, Kir T, Aydur E, Komesli G, Irkilata HC, Irmak MK, Peker AF. Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular phone on human sperm motility: an in vitro study. Arch Med Res. 2006 Oct;37(7):840-3.
Biomedical and Clinical Engineering Centre, Gulhane Military Medical Academy, Etlik, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There has been growing public concern on the effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by cellular phones on human health. Many studies have recently been published on this topic. However, possible consequences of the cellular phone usage on human sperm parameters have not been investigated adequately.
METHODS: A total number of 27 males were enrolled in the study. The semen sample obtained from each participant was divided equally into two parts. One of the specimens was exposed to EMR emitted by an activated 900 MHz cellular phone, whereas the other was not. The concentration and motility of the specimens were compared to analyze the effects of EMR. Assessment of sperm movement in all specimens was performed using four criteria: (A) rapid progressive, (B) slow progressive, (C) nonprogressive, (D) no motility.
RESULTS: Statistically significant changes were observed in the rapid progressive, slow progressive and no-motility categories of sperm movement. EMR exposure caused a subtle decrease in the rapid progressive and slow progressive sperm movement. It also caused an increase in the no-motility category of sperm movement. There was no statistically significant difference in the sperm concentration between two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that EMR emitted by cellular phone influences human sperm motility. In addition to these acute adverse effects of EMR on sperm motility, long-term EMR exposure may lead to behavioral or structural changes of the male germ cell. These effects may be observed later in life, and they are to be investigated more seriously.
PMID: 16971222
4
Falzone N, Huyser C, Becker P, Leszczynski D, Franken DR. The effect of pulsed 900-MHz GSM mobile phone radiation on the acrosome reaction, head morphometry and zona binding of human spermatozoa. Int J Androl. 2011 Feb;34(1):20-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2010.01054.x.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa. [email protected]
Abstract
Several recent studies have indicated that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF-EMF) have an adverse effect on human sperm quality, which could translate into an effect on fertilization potential. This study evaluated the effect of RF-EMF on sperm-specific characteristics to assess the fertilizing competence of sperm. Highly motile human spermatozoa were exposed for 1 h to 900-MHz mobile phone radiation at a specific absorption rate of 2.0 W/kg and examined at various times after exposure. The acrosome reaction was evaluated using flow cytometry. The radiation did not affect sperm propensity for the acrosome reaction. Morphometric parameters were assessed using computer-assisted sperm analysis. Significant reduction in sperm head area (9.2 ± 0.7 μm² vs. 18.8 ± 1.4 μm²) and acrosome percentage of the head area (21.5 ± 4% vs. 35.5 ± 11.4%) was reported among exposed sperm compared with unexposed controls. Sperm-zona binding was assessed directly after exposure using the hemizona assay. The mean number of zona-bound sperm of the test hemizona and controls was 22.8 ± 12.4 and 31.8 ± 12.8 (p < 0.05), respectively. This study concludes that although RF-EMF exposure did not adversely affect the acrosome reaction, it had a significant effect on sperm morphometry. In addition, a significant decrease in sperm binding to the hemizona was observed. These results could indicate a significant effect of RF-EMF on sperm fertilization potential.
PMID: 20236367
Falzone N, Huyser C, Franken DR, Leszczynski D. Mobile phone radiation does not induce pro-apoptosis effects in human spermatozoa. Radiat Res. 2010 Aug;174(2):169-76.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, South Africa. [email protected]
Abstract
Recent reports suggest that mobile phone radiation may diminish male fertility. However, the effects of this radiation on human spermatozoa are largely unknown. The present study examined effects of the radiation on induction of apoptosis-related properties in human spermatozoa. Ejaculated, density-purified, highly motile human spermatozoa were exposed to mobile phone radiation at specific absorption rates (SARs) of 2.0 and 5.7 W/kg. At various times after exposure, flow cytometry was used to examine caspase 3 activity, externalization of phosphatidylserine (PS), induction of DNA strand breaks, and generation of reactive oxygen species. Mobile phone radiation had no statistically significant effect on any of the parameters studied. This suggests that the impairment of fertility reported in some studies was not caused by the induction of apoptosis in spermatozoa.
PMID: 20681783
5
Falzone N, Huyser C, Fourie F, Toivo T, Leszczynski D, Franken D. In vitro effect of pulsed 900 MHz GSM radiation on mitochondrial membrane potential and motility of human spermatozoa. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 May;29(4):268-76.
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Tshwane University of Technology, Pretoria, Gauteng, South Africa. [email protected]
Abstract
Ejaculated, density purified, human spermatozoa were exposed to pulsed 900 MHz GSM mobile phone radiation at two specific absorption rate levels (SAR 2.0 and 5.7 W/kg) and compared with controls over time. Change in sperm mitochondrial membrane potential was analysed using flow cytometry. Sperm motility was determined by computer assisted sperm analysis (CASA). There was no effect of pulsed 900 MHz GSM radiation on mitochondrial membrane potential. This was also the case for all kinematic parameters assessed at a SAR of 2.0 W/kg. However, over time, the two kinematic parameters straight line velocity (VSL) and beat-cross frequency (BCF) were significantly impaired (P < 0.05) after the exposure at SAR 5.7 W/kg and no exposure by time interaction was present. This result should not be ascribed to thermal effects, due to the cooling methods employed in the RF chamber and temperature control within the incubator.
PMID: 18163440
Fejes I, Závaczki Z, Szöllosi J, Koloszár S, Daru J, Kovács L, Pál A. Is there a relationship between cell phone use and semen quality? Arch Androl. 2005 Sep-Oct;51(5):385-93.
Andrology Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Szeged, Hungary. [email protected]
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine a possible relationship between regular cell phone use and different human semen attributes. The history-taking of men in our university clinic was supplemented with questions concerning cell phone use habits, including possession, daily standby position and daily transmission times. Semen analyses were performed by conventional methods. Statistics were calculated with SPSS statistical software. A total of 371 were included in the study. The duration of possession and the daily transmission time correlated negatively with the proportion of rapid progressive motile sperm (r = -0.12 and r = -0.19, respectively), and positively with the proportion of slow progressive motile sperm (r = 0.12 and r = 0.28, respectively). The low and high transmitter groups also differed in the proportion of rapid progressive motile sperm (48.7% vs. 40.6%). The prolonged use of cell phones may have negative effects on the sperm motility characteristics.
PMID: 16087567
6
Wdowiak A, Wdowiak L, Wiktor H. Evaluation of the effect of using mobile phones on male fertility. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2007;14(1):169-72.
Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Obstetric-Gynaecological Nursing, Medical University of Lublin, 20-950 Lublin, Jaczewskiego 5, Poland. [email protected]
Abstract
The problem of the lack of offspring is a phenomenon concerning approximately 15% of married couples in Poland. Infertility is defined as inability to conceive after a year of sexual intercourses without the use of contraceptives. In half of the cases the causative factor is the male. Males are exposed to the effect of various environmental factors, which may decrease their reproductive capabilities. A decrease in male fertility is a phenomenon which occurs within years, which may suggest that one of the reasons for the decrease in semen parameters is the effect of the development of techniques in the surrounding environment. A hazardous effect on male fertility may be manifested by a decrease in the amount of sperm cells, disorders in their mobility, as well as structure. The causative agents may be chemical substances, ionizing radiation, stress, as well as electromagnetic waves. The objective of the study was the determination of the effect of the usage of cellular phones on the fertility of males subjected to marital infertility therapy. The following groups were selected from among 304 males covered by the study: Group A: 99 patients who did not use mobile phones, Group B: 157 males who have used GSM equipment sporadically for the period of 1-2 years, and Group C: 48 people who have been regularly using mobile phone for more than 2 years. In the analysis of the effect of GSM equipment on the semen it was noted that an increase in the percentage of sperm cells of abnormal morphology is associated with the duration of exposure to the waves emitted by the GSM phone. It was also confirmed that a decrease in the percentage of sperm cells in vital progressing motility in the semen is correlated with the frequency of using mobile phones.
PMID: 17655195
7
Review Papers
Agarwal A, Desai NR, Ruffoli R, Carpi A. (2008b). Lifestyle and testicular dysfunction: a brief update. Biomed Pharmacother. Oct;62(8):550-3. Epub 2008b Aug 8.
Center for Reproductive Medicine, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute and Obst/Gyne and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
The incidence of testicular cancer, cryptorchidism and defective spermatogenesis is increasing probably due to environmental and lifestyle-related factors. The aim of this review is to briefly describe and comment on the principal lifestyle factors. The recent findings that the electromagnetic waves following the use of the cell phone and the prolonged exposure to the noise stress cause relevant testicular dysfunction in man or animals reinforce the hypothesis of the importance of lifestyle-related factors.
PMID: 18771892
Deepinder F, Makker K, Agarwal A. Cell phones and male infertility: dissecting the relationship. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007 Sep;15(3):266-70.
Reproductive Research Center, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute and Department of Obstetrics- Gynecology, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk A19.1, Cleveland, Ohio 44195, USA.
Abstract
There has been a tremendous increase in the use of mobile phones in the past decade and concerns are growing about the possible hazardous effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic waves (EMW) emitted by these devices on human health. Preliminary studies, though with limitations in study design, suggest a possible link between cell phone use and infertility. A recent study found that use of cell phones adversely affects the quality of semen by decreasing the sperm counts, motility, viability and morphology. Evidence of detrimental effect of mobile phones on male fertility is still equivocal as studies have revealed a wide spectrum of possible effects ranging from insignificant effects to variable degrees of testicular damage. Although previous studies suggested a role of cell phone use in male infertility, the mode of action of EMW emitted from cell phones on the male reproductive system is still unclear. EMW can affect the reproductive system via an EMW-specific effect, thermal molecular effect or combination of both. Studies performed on human males are scarce and therefore further studies with a careful design are needed to determine the effect of cell phone use on male-fertilizing potential.
PMID: 17854521
8
Derias EM, Stefanis P, Drakeley A, Gazvani R, Lewis-Jones DI. Growing concern over the safety of using mobile phones and male fertility. Arch Androl. 2006 Jan-Feb;52(1):9-14.
Hewitt Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Liverpool Women's Hospital, Liverpool, UK.
Abstract
There are growing concerns about the possible hazards of electromagnetic waves emitted by mobile phones on human health. One of the biggest concerns is their possible association with increased risk of cancer and their possible effects on cellular DNA. Electromagnetic waves can inflict their results through both thermal and non-thermal effects. There are many animal studies that show that electromagnetic waves have a wide range of damaging effects on the male reproductive system and sperm parameters. However, similar studies are quite limited in humans, and the results of animal studies should be interpreted with caution when considering their application to humans. Large controlled studies are required before confirming such possible effects on male fertility.
PMID: 16338863
Desai NR, Kesari KK, Agarwal A. Pathophysiology of cell phone radiation: oxidative stress and carcinogenesis with focus on male reproductive system. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009 Oct 22;7:114.
Center for Reproductive Medicine, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute and Obstetrics and Gynecology and Women's Health Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. [email protected]
Abstract
Hazardous health effects stemming from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) emitted from cell phones have been reported in the literature. However, the cellular target of RF-EMW is still controversial. This review identifies the plasma membrane as a target of RF-EMW. In addition, the effects of RF-EMW on plasma membrane structures (i.e. NADH oxidase, phosphatidylserine, ornithine decarboxylase) and voltage-gated calcium channels are discussed. We explore the disturbance in reactive oxygen species (ROS) metabolism caused by RF-EMW and delineate NADH oxidase mediated ROS formation as playing a central role in oxidative stress (OS) due to cell phone radiation (with a focus on the male reproductive system). This review also addresses: 1) the controversial effects of RF-EMW on mammalian cells and sperm DNA as well as its effect on apoptosis, 2) epidemiological, in vivo animal and in vitro studies on the effect of RF-EMW on male reproductive system, and 3) finally, exposure assessment and dosimetry by computational biomodeling.
PMID: 19849853
9
Makker K, Varghese A, Desai NR, Mouradi R, Agarwal A. Cell phones: modern man's nemesis? Reprod Biomed Online. 2009 Jan;18(1):148-57.
Center for Reproductive Medicine, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
Over the past decade, the use of mobile phones has increased significantly. However, with every technological development comes some element of health concern, and cell phones are no exception. Recently, various studies have highlighted the negative effects of cell phone exposure on human health, and concerns about possible hazards related to cell phone exposure have been growing. This is a comprehensive, up-to-the-minute overview of the effects of cell phone exposure on human health. The types of cell phones and cell phone technologies currently used in the world are discussed in an attempt to improve the understanding of the technical aspects, including the effect of cell phone exposure on the cardiovascular system, sleep and cognitive function, as well as localized and general adverse effects, genotoxicity potential, neurohormonal secretion and tumour induction. The proposed mechanisms by which cell phones adversely affect various aspects of human health, and male fertility in particular, are explained, and the emerging molecular techniques and approaches for elucidating the effects of mobile phone radiation on cellular physiology using high-throughput screening techniques, such as metabolomics and microarrays, are discussed. A novel study is described, which is looking at changes in semen parameters, oxidative stress markers and sperm DNA damage in semen samples exposed in vitro to cell phone radiation.
PMID: 19146782
10
Discussion/Action Item 1j CEAC April 7, 2011
Three Cellphone Industry Sound-bites & More
Industry Sound-Bites Sound-bite 1: The weight of the evidence shows there is no problem Response 1: Remove industry-funded studies from the weight of the evidence and the evidence is overwhelming. All studies, industry-funded and independent finds that use of a cellphone for >10 years increases the risk of brain cancer.
Sound-bite 2: There is no known mechanism (implying the date must be wrong) Response 2: Science is about the data. In the history of science, it takes decades to centuries before mechanisms are understood. The are many candidate mechanisms.
Sound-bite 3: With so many people using cellphones, if they were causing brain tumors, we should be seeing an increase in brain cancer incidence, but there is no increase. Response 3: It is true there is no brain cancer incidence (a measure of the whole US population) increase, but brain tumors have an average latency time of 30+ years. Thus the question is what proportion of the US population was using cellphones 30 years ago?
Additional Information Requested by Commissioner Schlachter Lack of Brain Cancer Incidence Increase It is well know that the latency time between first exposure and diagnosis of solid tumors takes an average of 30 years or more. This is true for smoking and lung cancer and true for ionizing radiation and brain tumors. I will cite two examples that report a 30+ year latency time for brain tumors. A-Bomb Survivor Cohort The first is a cohort study of increased cancer from low-level exposure to atomic bomb radiation among the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombs in August 1945. This cohort received relative low-level exposures because people who received high-doses were either killed by the blast or died of radiation poisoning shortly afterwards. The first data showing increased risks were in non-solid blood tumors such as leukemia. It was clear after 7-10 years that these tumors were above the expected rate. Then after about 20-30 years there was an increase in solid tumors of many types, but not brain tumors. By 1995, 40 years after the exposure, the scientific consensus was that A-bomb radiation caused brain tumors. This cohort study is still underway. Israeli Children Scalp Ringworm Cohort The second study comes from Israel. Up until about 1960 it was common practice around the world, including in the US, to treat scalp ringworm infections with X-rays. It was non-invasive, required a one-time dose, and was 100% effective in getting rid of the infection. However, years later an excess of brain tumors was seen in these children. An on-going Israeli study of children "cured" of scalp ringworm, 40 years later, found 3 important results. The average age of these children was 7 years. The 3 important results were: 1) The increase in brain tumors incidence was found 30+ years after the children were X-rayed; 2) The risk was inverse with the age at time of treatment (highest risk were children <5 years, next highest risk were children 5-<10 years, which was higher than children >10 years when X-rayed), and: 3) the risks were still increasing 40 year afterwards. This study is still underway. Commission Schlachter showed the Environmental Commission’s sub-committee a graph by Inskip et al. showing the rapid increase in cellphone use and the very slight decreasing rate of brain cancers during these same years. This was as expected. The data ended in 2006. So the question to ask was how many people were using cellphones 30 years previous to 2006 (1976)? It is far too early to see an increase in brain tumor among the whole populations. The reason that all case-control studies show an increase in brain tumor for >10 years of cellphone use is that these brain cancer cases were diagnosed earlier than the average time. For example, Alan Marks, Ellie's husband, was diagnosed after 20 years with 10,000 cumulative hours of cellphone use.
“Little Cellphone Radiation Is Absorbed”1 The technique use to determine how much cellphone radiation is absorbed is called Finite-Difference-Time- Domain (FDTD) computer simulation. This technique has been around 4 or more decades. It has been used for everything from nuclear explosion analysis, airflow in aircraft designs, and for human exposure to cellphone radiation. In the latter case, MRI scans of human beings (from small children of both gender to pregnant women at 1, 3 and 6 months gestation, to obese men. The electrical properties of each tissue that result in absorption of cellphone radiation used. The result is an accurate 3-D determination of the exposures. When a cellphone is held immediately against the head, half of the microwave
radiation from the cellphone is absorbed by the skull and brain.
From FDTD computer simulation study given to Commissioner Schlachter.
1 Stated by Commissioner Schlachter at sub-committee meeting. Discussion/Action Item 1k CEAC April 7, 2011
Cellphone Radiation May Alter Your Brain. Let’s Talk.
By KATE MURPHY
New York Times – March 30, 2011
In a culture where people cradle their cellphones next to their heads with the same constancy and affection that toddlers hold their security blankets, it was unsettling last month when a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association indicated that doing so could alter brain activity.
The report said it was unclear whether the changes in the brain — an increase in glucose metabolism after using the phone for less than an hour — had any negative health or behavioral effects. But it has many people wondering what they can do to protect themselves short of (gasp) using a landline.
“Cellphones are fantastic and have done much to increase productivity,” said Dr. Nora Volkow, the lead investigator of the study and director of the National Institute of Drug Abuse at the National Institutes of Health. “I’d never tell people to stop using them entirely.”
Yet, in light of her findings, she advises users to keep cellphones at a distance by putting them on speaker mode or using a wired headset whenever possible. The next best option is a wireless Bluetooth headset or earpiece, which emit radiation at far lower levels. If a headset isn’t feasible, holding your phone just slightly away from your ear can make a big difference; the intensity of radiation diminishes sharply with distance. “Every millimeter counts,” said Louis Slesin, editor of Microwave News, an online newsletter covering health and safety issues related to exposure to electromagnetic radiation.
So crushing your cellphone into your ear to hear better in a crowded bar is probably a bad idea. Go outside if you have to take or make a call. And you might not want to put your cellphone in your breast or pants pocket either, because that also puts it right up against your body. Carry it in a purse or briefcase or get a nonmetallic belt clip that orients it away from your body.
Some studies have suggested a link between cellphone use and cancer, lower bone density and infertility in men. But other studies show no effect at all. Given the mixed messages and continuing research, Robert Kenny, a Federal Communications Commission spokesman, said in an e-mail, “As always, we will continue to study this issue and coordinate with our federal partners.”
The phone used in Dr. Volkow’s study was a Samsung Knack, model SCH-U310, a flip phone that was in wide use when she began planning her experiments two and half years ago. But today’s ubiquitous smartphones emit even more radiation as they transmit more, and more complex, data. You can get an idea of the relative amounts of radiation various cellphone models emit by looking at their SAR, or Specific Absorption Rate. This number indicates how much radiation is absorbed by the body when using the handset at maximum power. A cellphone cannot be sold in the United States unless an F.C.C.-approved laboratory says its SAR is below 1.6 watts per kilogram. In Europe, the maximum is 2 watts per kilogram.
The SAR number is not displayed when you compare cellphones at your local wireless store, and trying to find it in the fine print of your user manual is an exercise in frustration. The F.C.C. maintains that SAR values “do not provide sufficient information” to reliably compare cellphone radiation emissions because certain phones might rarely operate at maximum power. Still, the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization, has a comprehensive list of the SAR values for most cellphones available from major carriers on its Web site. (For instance, the Apple iPhone 4 is listed at 1.17 watts per kilogram, the Motorola Droid at 1.5 and the LG Quantum at 0.35.)
But more important than looking for a low-SAR phone is how you use it. Many cellphones emit the most radiation when they initially establish contact with the cell tower, making their “digital handshake.” To reduce exposure it’s best to wait until after your call has been connected to put your cellphone next to your ear.
During the ensuing conversation, it’s advisable to tilt the phone away from your ear when you are talking and only bring it in close to your ear when you are listening. That bit of teeter-totter works because the emission of radiation is “significantly less when a cellphone is receiving signals than when it is transmitting,” said Lin Zhong, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering at Rice University in Houston.
Moreover, your cellphone emits less when you are stationary because when you are moving rapidly — say, in a car or train — it must repeatedly issue little bursts of radiation to make digital handshakes with different towers as it moves in and out of range. (More cause to hang up when you buckle up.)
Want another reason to complain about your carrier’s poor coverage? Any situation where your cellphone has a weak signal indicates it has to work harder and thus will emit more radiation. “Fewer bars means more radiation,” said Om Gandhi, professor of electrical engineering at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Inside buildings and elevators, in rural areas, the Grand Canyon — these are not good places to make a call if you’re trying to reduce your exposure to radiation.
Of course, parents using their iPhones to pacify cranky kids might want to reconsider rattles. Children’s developing brains and tissues are thought to be most vulnerable to cellphone radiation. Health authorities in Britain, France, Germany and Russia have all issued warnings against allowing small children to use cellphones for extended periods, if at all.
There are cellphone attachments that purport to shield users from radiation, and most are “hoaxes,” said Mr. Gandhi. Beware of pendants that sellers claim snatch radiation from the air. Pong Research offers a cellphone case for iPhones and BlackBerrys that it says has been shown by an F.C.C.-approved testing lab to redirect radiation from the phone’s antenna away from the head.
While the manufacturer says it reduces radiation more than 60 percent, some electrical engineering experts question whether the case may have the opposite effect at orientations where your head is in the way of the cell tower because your phone may have to increase its transmission strength somewhat to compensate for the redirected signal. The company disputes this. Nevertheless, the net effect of using the device throughout the course of the day may be a reduction in total exposure.
Texting, instead of talking, might be safer. “The whole trend toward texting instead of talking on cellphones is probably a good thing,” said Mr. Slesin at Microwave News.
That is, if you don’t rest your cellphone against your body while typing out your message.
This page left intentionally blank Discussion/Action Item 1l CEAC April 7, 2011
Cell phones and brain cancer: a scientific view
There has been a flurry of reports claiming a causal link between cell-phone use and brain cancer, particularly in blogs, popular literature, television, and the internet. The increased risk of brain cancer is purported to be caused by electromagnetic radiation in the microwave range used in cell-phone transmission.
This report will present information on the incidence of brain cancer and cell-phone usage, and on the interaction of electromagnetic radiation with matter. The physics underlying chemistry and biology must ultimately provide the most fundamental explanations of mechanisms which could relate cell-phone use to brain cancer. A brief final section will discuss the decline of science education in the United States, the rise of distrust of authority, and ways in which medical and scientific reports can reach erroneous conclusions.
Cell-phone use and incidence of brain cancer.
The first question to ask is whether there is epidemiological evidence of brain cancer caused by cell-phone radiation. The steep increase in the use of cell phones in the world since the early 1990’s should—if cell-phone radiation causes brain cancer—be accompanied by an increase in the incidence rate of brain cancer, with some delay to be expected for an assumed latency period. Latency is the average time it would take for brain cancer, if caused by cell-phone use, to be diagnosed. Figure 1 shows cell-phone use and brain-cancer diagnoses in the US as a function of time over the period since cell phones have become ubiquitous.
Figure 1. (A) Number of wireless subscribers in the United States, 1984-2006; (B) age-adjusted incidence of brain cancer.
SEER 9, 1984-2006. [Inskip, Hoover, and Devesa, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Neuro- Oncology, July 16, 2010]. [Neuro- Oncology 2010 Noc;12(11):1147-51]
There has been no increase • Update rate of brain cancer: in brain-cancer incidence. Year 2006: 6.23 per 100,000. Year2007: 6.36 per 100,000. seer.cancer.usa.gov • Update cell phones: Year 2010: 292M. files.ctia.org 2010
1 Figure 1 shows that the incidence of diagnosed cases of brain cancer in the US has not changed in thirty years, while the number of cell-phone users in the US has increased to about one cell phone per person. If cell phones were to cause brain cancer, we should see the rate increase, whatever latency period one may assume. There is no increase.
A similar study of time trends (1998-2007) of brain-cancer incidence rates in England reaches a similar conclusion [de Vocht et al, Bioelectromagnetics (2010)]. “Our analysis suggests that the increased and wide-spread use of mobile phones, which in some studies was associated with brain cancer risk, has not led to a noticeable increase in the incidence of brain cancer in England between 1998 and 2007. Therefore it is very unlikely that we are ‘at the forefront of a cancer epidemic’ related to mobile phone use…we interpret the present data as not indicating a pressing need to implement a precautionary principle to reduce exposure to RF [radio-frequency radiation] from mobile phones by means of population-wide interventions.”
Some activists claim that the latency period is thirty years, which could explain why one might expect to see a modest increase in brain-cancer incidence. In fact, there is no increase in the incidence of brain cancer. The 30-year figure is made up, because there is no evidence for any latency period for brain cancer related to cell-phone use. A claimed analogy with exposure to atomic-bomb blasts or to x rays is unscientific and incorrect. De Vocht et al. [previous reference] assume a 5-10 year average latency period between exposure and the clinical manifestation of the tumor. The presumed latency period is anybody’s guess. The inescapable conclusion is that there are no apparent cases of brain cancer to date caused by cell-phone use, as shown in incidence studies. This observation leads to an obvious question: since there are no cases of brain cancer caused by cell- phone use found in incidence studies, which cases of brain cancer purportedly caused by cell-phone use are being studied and reported?
Interaction of light with matter (1): Heating effects of microwave radiation.
It is well known that microwaves of a selected frequency can be used to heat food in a microwave oven. Microwaves of 2.45 GHz (2450 MHz) resonantly excite rotation of water molecules. Since water is contained in most food, food can be heated with microwaves of this frequency. A cup or bowl in a microwave oven does not get hot, except by thermal conduction from heated food, because glass and ceramic do not contain water. Microwaves of a frequency different from 2.45GHz will not efficiently heat water because the microwaves of another frequency will be only slightly absorbed by water.
Microwaves in the frequency range used by cell phones––800 MHz to 1.9 GHz––are not as efficiently absorbed by water or body tissue as is radiation at 2.45 GHz. These microwaves will cause slight heating of tissue. However, the head has massive blood circulation, thus massive cooling capability, and a half watt of radiation from a cell phone ––being out in the sun puts more than a watt of sunlight onto your head––would be rapidly removed by blood flow. Heating of the brain by cell phones is negligible.
2 Interaction of light with matter (2): Ionizing effects of electromagnetic radiation.
The spectrum of electromagnetic radiation is shown in Fig. 2. Electromagnetic radiation covers a very broad spectrum, from low-frequency (long-wavelength) radiation, in the form of ubiquitous radio and television emissions, through infrared and visible light, to ultraviolet light and x rays.
Einstein already answered the question of whether or not microwaves can break chemical bonds and thus cause cancer. In his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect––for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1921––he explained that light is “quantized,” i.e., that light behaves like individual particles called photons. Photon energy is related to wavelength or frequency of light by a constant called Planck’s constant. Photons with wavelengths longer than blue light (such as microwave photons) have energies much too low to break chemical bonds. As we know, photons with short wavelengths (such as ultraviolet light or x rays) can break chemical bonds. They can cause cancer.
Figure 2. The electromagnetic spectrum.
Photons with long wavelengths (to the left of the vertical pink line) have energies too low to break chemical bonds, and are thus safe. Photons with energies to the right of the vertical line have energies sufficient to break chemical bonds, and are thus unsafe.
Activists in Berkeley and elsewhere have proposed posting the power of cell phones at the point of sale, suggesting that phones with higher power poses a greater health risk. It is important to distinguish between “energy” and “power.” Energy refers to the ability of a single photon to cause an action, such as breaking a chemical bond. A photon must have an energy greater than 4 electron volts to break a chemical bond; microwave photons have energies of only millionths of an electron volt. Power refers to the number of photons per second (actually, total energy per second), often measured in watts. Increasing the power of a cell phone does not change the fact that microwaves cannot break chemical bonds. Microwaves cannot break chemical bonds, and they cannot cause cancer, no matter how high the power nor how prolonged the use.
3
Reliable sources of information
The internet and published literature are full of biased and unreliable information, as are many advocate and industry websites. It is essential to rely only on information published by recognized non-partisan authorities: the World Health Organization, the National Institute of Health, and the Environmental Protection Agency. A few recommended sources of unbiased information are: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones “The Interphone study suggests that overall there is no cancer risk from cell phones.”
“Incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), show no increase in the age-adjusted incidence of brain and other nervous system cancers between 1987 and 2007, despite the dramatic increase in the use of cell phones (21). NCI continues to monitor cancer incidence data to detect any change in the rates of new cases of brain cancer. If cell phones play a role in the risk of brain cancer, one would expect to see an increase in rates because average monthly hours of cell phone use have increased regularly for the past decade in the United States.”
“With the publication of the Interphone study, research has fairly consistently demonstrated that there is not a link between cell phone use and cancer, but scientists caution that further surveillance, especially of heavy users and children and adolescents, is needed before definite conclusions can be drawn. There are currently no data on cell phone use and risk of cancer in children. No published studies to date have included children.” http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/ “To date, no adverse health effects have been established for mobile-phone use.”
“There is an increased risk of road-traffic injuries when drivers use mobile phones while driving.”
Studies
The most comprehensive epidemiological study to date of the possible impact of mobile phone usage on cancer risk is the Interphone Study, by Cardis et al., European Journal of Epidemiology 22:647-664 (2007) and International Journal of Epidemiology 1-20 (2010). This study concludes that cell-phone users show no increased risk of brain tumors “Overall, no risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error present a causal interpretation.”
Many activists have launched an impassioned attack on the Interphone
4 study, as in a widely circulated report, the cover of which is shown above. http://archive.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/15reasons.asp. The inflammatory image implies a brain red hot from use of a cell phone, which is physically not possible. Activists often call cell-phone radiation a carcinogen, and make an analogy between cell-phone use and brain cancer, and smoking and lung cancer, which have no common etiology. This is not science.
This critique of the Interphone study cites other studies which claim that cell-phone radiation causes brain cancer. Due to the very large number of studies published, it is easy to select a subset with conclusions consistent with a set of beliefs. This is not science. One must consider all extant studies to reach a reasonable conclusion. Most reliable studies find no link between cell-phone use and brain cancer.
There are many reports and studies on health and cell phones published. A meta-analysis by Myung, Ju, McDonnell, Lee, Kazinets, Cheng, and Moskowitz reports some positive findings. A presentation by Moskowitz reports many cell-phone health hazards, including impaired immune system, genetic damage, memory loss, DNA alteration, eye problems, among others; he also reports damage to sperm. The senior author, Moskowitz, is closely aligned with the activists who wrote “15 reasons.” Another review, by Khurana et al, also reports epidemiological evidence suggesting a link between cell-phone use and brain cancer. Behari reports in the Indian Journal of Experimental Biology a long list of health risks. The leading activist, Devra Davis, and the Environmental Health Trust, make many claims of positive findings and risks. These articles do not answer the basic questions: how can there be cases of brain cancer caused by cell phones, since the incidence rate has been constant from before cell phones were invented until the present; and what do we need to understand to support claims which do not appear to be consistent with physics as we know it. Most studies have not received serious review, and are open to question. Even the most comprehensive study to date, the Interphone study, is open to question (see above).
Many scientists are concerned that anecdotal and profoundly unscientific reports are common in the press and the internet, sometimes in the form of first-person experiences, sometimes in the form of law suits. This is not science.
Statistical treatment of data: “the truth wears off.”
An interesting article entitled “The Truth Wears Off” was published in the New Yorker magazine issue of December 13, 2010. The essential point is that many published effects are found to diminish as an experiment is repeated; eventually, after sufficient repetition and better statistics, the effect vanishes. This phenomenon, not surprisingly, arises from the intense pressure to publish a finding rather than a non-finding, and from improper statistical treatment of data with small sample populations. Subsequent studies with a larger population and better statistics find the effect diminished, and eventually the purported effect disappears.
5 The most comprehensive study of cell-phone use and brain cancer––the Interphone study mentioned above––suffers from the problems of statistics of small sample populations. In fact, the report concludes that biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions that can be drawn from analyses in the report, and prevent a causal interpretation. Eventually, as was the case for cancer purportedly caused by 60-Hz radiation from power lines, any link between cell-phone use, no matter how small, will almost certainly disappear when the study is repeated with a larger sample population.
Conclusion
There has been no increase in the rate of brain cancer over the past thirty years. This should end the discussion of brain cancer caused by cell phones. If the presumed latency period is too long, then there are at present no cases of brain cancer caused by use of cell phones.
Physics, which underlies chemistry, which underlies biology, does not support any interaction with matter of long-wavelength radiation––microwaves– which could cause cancer.
The most comprehensive and reliable case-control study to date reports no elevated risk for glioma or meningioma for users after more than ten years of first phone use. Other contradictory results are considered by the authors to be subject to biases and errors, thus preventing a causal interpretation. These findings do not support activist claims that cell- phone use causes brain cancer.
A combination of poor science education in America, growing distrust of authority, research studies marred by the limitation of statistics of small samples, and recent events such as the nuclear disaster in Japan––leave a public subject to fear of radiation, with no tools to distinguish what is dangerous from what is not. There is widespread conviction that “radiation” is by definition a health hazard, while, in fact, there are many kinds of radiation. Some forms of radiation are dangerous, like ultraviolet light and x rays, and some forms are harmless, like radio waves and microwaves. Some radiation is even beneficial: sunshine helps our bodies produce vitamin D. The irrational fear of radiation extends from cell phones and wi-fi to power lines to smart meters and other aspects of modern life. It is our duty as commissioners to help educate the public, to warn of real environmental dangers, to mitigate these dangers to the extent possible, and to minimize risk to public health. At the same time we must avoid fostering fear of non-existent dangers. Brain cancer from cell phones falls in this latter category.
Labeling the power of cell phones at the point of sale, while relatively benign, would contribute to the public’s fear of radiation by linking cell-phone power and brain cancer. Posting cell-phone power would make as much sense as posting radioactivity signs in the banana department at supermarkets: bananas are slightly radioactive––as are our own bodies and the very earth we stand on––yet they pose no risk to health…in fact bananas are very good for health.
Report prepared by Fred Schlachter, Ph.D March 30, 2011 [email protected] 6 Discussion/Action Item 2 CEAC April 7, 2011
City of Berkeley – Boards and Commissions
Commission on Aging Animal Care Commission Civic Arts Commission Commission on Disability Design Review Committee Disaster and Fire Safety Commission Downtown Berkeley Business Improvement District Advisory Board Downtown Street & Open Space Improvement Plan Joint Subcommittee Commission on Early Childhood Education Elmwood Advisory Board Energy Commission Community Environmental Advisory Commission Fair Campaign Practices Commission Community Health Commission Housing Advisory Commission Human Welfare & Community Action Commission Commission on Labor Landmarks Preservation Commission Board of Library Trustees Loan Administration Board Medical Cannabis Commission Mental Health Commission Parks & Recreation Commission Peace & Justice Commission Personnel Board Planning Commission Police Review Commission Publics Work Commission Solano Avenue Business Improvement District Advisory Board Commission on the Status of Women Street & Open Space Improvement Plan Joint Subcommittee, Downtown Transportation Commission Waterfront Commission West Berkeley Project Area Committee Commission on the Status of Women Youth Commission Zero Waste Commission Zoning Adjustments Board
Community Environmental Advisory Commission Develops a plan, prioritizes strategies and makes recommendations for environmental protection, hazardous materials and reduction, with outreach to and education of the public, small businesses and industry.
Energy Commission Advises the Council on energy conservation and alternative energy development in Berkeley.
Zero Waste Commission The Commission is responsible for making recommendations on City solid waste policy and goals, including commercial and residential garbage and recycling services, budgets, and other decisions relating to solid waste in the City of Berkeley.
Community Health Commission Concerned with health planning, education, and informational service to the community. Reviews health proposals submitted by public and private agencies for funding. Total membership is eighteen with each council member making two appointments. Membership shall attempt to reflect the following categories: two parents, one of whom shall have a child eligible for state reimbursed services, (per California Health and Safety Code, Section 320); one physician; one representative of a public or private educational agency; remaining members interested in the health of women, children, and adolescents. Council shall appoint one of its members as a liaison.
Transportation Commission Advises the Council on transportation policies, facilities, and services.
Planning Commission Oversees and reviews the planning process and planning issues. Specific types of matters which come before the Planning Commission include revisions to the General Plan, Area Plans, Zoning Ordinance amendments, etc., including EIR and subdivision approvals.
Public Works Commission Advises the Council on maintenance, repair, and capital improvement of streets, sidewalks, sanitary sewers, storm drains, City buildings, communication systems, vehicles and equipment, and undergrounding of utilities.
West Berkeley Project Area Committee Charged with assisting the Berkeley Redevelopment Agency in the completion of the West Berkeley Redevelopment Project. Members must either reside, be a businessperson, or a member of an existing organization within the area bounded by Gilman Street, Curtis Street, Dwight Way, and the San Francisco Bay.