Does Carrying a Cell Phone on Your Hip Cause Bone Loss?

[Ivan Seeking]

Is your cell phone practically glued to your ear? Beware: New research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology says that regular mobile phone use may increase your risk of developing tumors. AFP reports that Israeli researchers found that frequent cell phone users—described as people who chatter on mobiles more than 22 hours a month—had a nearly 50 percent higher risk than others of developing a tumor on the parotid gland. [continued]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-of-the-weekis

 

[somasimple]

Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones.

Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR.

Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. Leif.Salford@neurokir.lu.se

The possible risks of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields for the human body is a growing concern for our society. We have previously shown that weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier. In this study we investigated whether a pathologic leakage across the blood-brain barrier might be combined with damage to the neurons. Three groups each of eight rats were exposed for 2 hr to Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) mobile phone electromagnetic fields of different strengths. We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats.

PMID: 12782486 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[hypatia]

Salivary gland tumors[parotid gland], are some what rare. I've not noticed, nor have I read any information in reguards to a increase in this type of tumor, over the past 20 years in the the US.
Exposure to certain radioactive substances, nickel alloy dust or silica dust {the last two more common in rural areas of the middle east}, are known to cause salivary gland tumors.
I would be more interested in cell phone research done in areas away from known carcinogens. I would think these studies will follow soon.

 

[yangxu]

What is the frequency most cellphones operate under? Our home phones are reaching 6.0Ghz, with 5.8Ghz and 2.4Ghz being the most common... if the cellphone frequency is anywhere near this, a conjunction usage between home and mobile phones could potentially increase the risk of developing tumors to an even higher level, couldn't it?

 

[Gokul43201]

The director of a leading US cancer research institute has sent a memo to thousands of staff warning of possible higher risks from mobile phone use.

Ronald Herberman, of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, said users should not wait for definitive studies on the risk and should take action now.

He said children should use mobiles in emergencies only and adults should try to keep the phone away from the head.

No major academic study has confirmed a link to higher brain-tumour risks.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7523109.stm

 

[russ_watters]

The USA Today article is pretty good - slams the guy pretty hard:

The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cellphone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

They go on to list a bunch of studies showing no evidence. And this guy cites no research to base his warning on.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-23-cancer-cellphone_N.htm

 

[WarPhalange]

Worst-case scenario is we all have to wear grounded tin-foil hats.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It seems likely to me that IF cell phones put off enough power at a high enough frequency to cause damage to cellular processes (most research seems to find this unlikely), then this effect may be subject to something similar to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_homeostasis" .

In a nutshell:

Radiation Homeostasis is a controversial idea that exposure to radiation renders an organism more able to resist radiation and/or enjoy a better state of health than that of the unirradated organism.

Some studies have suggested that pre-exposure to radiation exerts a protective effect upon cells [1] and whole animals[2]. In mice it has been shown that a 200 mGy X-ray dose protects mice against both further X-ray exposure and ozone gas.[3] Furthermore it has been shown in a rodent study that low level (1 mGy hr-1) gamma irradiation prevents the development of cancer (induced by chemical means, injection of methylcholanthrene).[4] Also it has been shown that irradiation with gamma rays increases the concentration of glutathione (an antioxidant) found within cells, this is likely to lead to an adaptive response.[5]

 

[Dale]

There is no reliable evidence to support this concern. The wavelengths involved are nowhere near ionizing, so any effect would have to be thermal. The energy involved is pretty low so even thermal effects will be minor.

That said, I deliberately use my bluetooth headset in order to have a lower RF dose. I don't think there is a big risk from cell phone radiation, but why take even that small risk when there is an alternative.

 

[mheslep]

What is the frequency most cellphones operate under? Our home phones are reaching 6.0Ghz, with 5.8Ghz and 2.4Ghz being the most common... if the cellphone frequency is anywhere near this, a conjunction usage between home and mobile phones could potentially increase the risk of developing tumors to an even higher level, couldn't it?

Only the home 'cordless phones' use those high frequencies, not cell phones. The highest cell freq I am aware of is the 2110-2215 MHz band for UMTS / 3G. The home cordless can be fairly high power now too - up to one watt compared to three watts peak power for a cell.

 

[mheslep]

This quote in the article from director Devra Lee Davis is a fun game:

"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cellphone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cellphones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."

Let me try:
"I don't know that listening to blather from University directors is dangerous. But I don't know that it is safe"

"Children should listen to alarmist grant obsessed University directors only for emergencies because their brains are still developing.

Adults should keep a safe distance away from alarmist grant obsessed University directors, and even go so far as to avoid them in public places because it risks exposure to brain rot and personal funds depletion."

 

[Creator]

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-of-the-weekis

Thanks Ivan...for the report.. I personally just recently have been diagnosed with a tumor IN MY SALAVARY gland JUST AFTER 2 months of extensive cell phone use holding the phone next to my cheek on that side of my face. There is no doubt in my mind what caused it. Fortunately it is benign.

Amazingly I had studied this years ago and knew of the radiation dangers and didn't take precautions anyway.

A friend of mine just got out of the hospital for surgery of the same thing...in the salavary gland...and I was just looking for reports to confirm this serious problem which has been censored and 'pooh poohed' by the cell phone industry for years, and who apparently don't want the truth to come out.

It reminds me of the Cigarette industry which was in a constant state of denial for years.

Thanks again.

P.S. Thanks Gokul for ressurrecting this thread. It was that very article that I saw today on line that got me realizing that others are finally willing to speak out...

 

[Evo]

I seriously doubt that a tumor would have gotten to that stage after two months of cell phone usage, or could have been caused by a cell phone. It just doesn't happen like that.

 

[Creator]

I seriously doubt that a tumor would have gotten to that stage after two months of cell phone usage, or could have been caused by a cell phone. It just doesn't happen like that.

Yes, it DOES happen like that ...I suggest you listen to others who know more than you and gain some knowledge from those of us who have had the personal experience as well as the physics...

You can doubt all you want, evo, but I'm the one who has it ...NOT you...

Just to clarify for others...
The lump was not there 3 months prior... , only after two or possible 3 months of heavy phone usage I detected the lump bulging out the side of my neck when I was shaving...Had it been there before that time I would have noticed it ...so yes, it grew within that period of time. ...Since you, evo, have no knowledge of my situation, you are making the same type of foolish generalizations that the 'cigarettes cannot cause cancer' people made years ago , AKA, denial of reality.

The docs made a ultrasound on it and said it was a tumor with calcifiction in that salivary gland .

..

 

[Gokul43201]

Yes, it DOES happen like that ...I suggest you listen to others who know more than you and gain some knowledge from those of us who have had the personal experience as well as the physics...

As someone who does physics, you must know that personal experience is among the poorest kind of scientific evidence. But as for the science behind radio frequency induced tumors, I wasn't aware that there was a known mechanism, so am all ears (eyes), if you could explain.

We realize that this is a personal issue for you, but we must concentrate on the science.

 

[Dale]

You cannot, in principle, PROVE a negative. Nobody doubts that you got a tumor and nobody doubts that you use a cell phone frequently on that side, but those facts together http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation" . That is a very common logical error.

Establishing a causal relationship scientifically is a much more difficult process: you need to propose a mechanism, identify extraneous factors, design a study to test your mechanism, account for the identified extraneous factors, etc. The scientific process is important shouldn't be trivialized by jumping to conclusions either way.

I am glad it is benign, and hope everything works out.

 

[russ_watters]

Creator, before cell phones were invented, did anyone ever get such tumors? If so, how?

If the link is so strong that you can get a tumor from two months of cell phone usage, why don't I have one? I've been using a cell phone for years.

 

[Gokul43201]

Russ, it may well be that the salivary gland tumor is a response to both the radiation as well as some other condition(s) which you don't have.

 

[Moonbear]

Russ, it may well be that the salivary gland tumor is a response to both the radiation as well as some other condition(s) which you don't have.

While there is always the possibility that there is a small, at-risk population, with the current number of heavy cell phone users, if such short-term exposure could induce tumor growth, and with so many who have been using cell phones for much longer periods than just two months, we would have observed such an increase in tumor incidence in the general population that nobody would be able to refute the epidemiological studies.

But, anecdotal evidence of the type provided is simply not science. Parotid tumors have developed in people long before cell phones existed. That same incidence rate would be expected to continue. With the increase in cell phone usage, of course many of those people will have used cell phones, just as prior to then, many of those people will have watched TVs, or talked on landline phones, or used soap at the time the tumor appeared. None of that indicates causation if there is no statistically significant increase in the cell-phone using population compared with the non-cell-phone using population, or in the TV watching population vs to the non-TV watching population, etc.

Because another point of contention here was the rate of tumor growth, I want to clarify that yes, indeed some tumors can be rapidly growing and develop and appear within that time frame. And, in particular, one in a gland very near the skin surface is likely to be detected quite quickly since it is readily palpable.

 

[Evo]

The docs made a ultrasound on it and said it was a tumor with calcifiction in that salivary gland .

..

That was going to be my guess that what you had was simply a calcification blocking the salivary gland. I've had that twice, but both times the blockage cleared by itself. My doctor said that if it keeps happening that I will need to have the gland surgically removed.

This is a common disorder. Creator you may relax because this is not caused by radiation.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001039.htm

Also, since you seem worried, here is more about the formation of cysts due to calcification (stone) blockage. Although the infection and swelling that was caused is gone, I still have a small lump the size of a pea which the doctor told me is nothing to worry about.

http://www.csmc.edu/11367.html

 

[Gokul43201]

While there is always the possibility that there is a small, at-risk population, with the current number of heavy cell phone users, if such short-term exposure could induce tumor growth, and with so many who have been using cell phones for much longer periods than just two months, we would have observed such an increase in tumor incidence in the general population that nobody would be able to refute the epidemiological studies.

But, anecdotal evidence of the type provided is simply not science.

I concur - and part of that was exactly what I was saying before. To make myself clear: neither does the first anecdote serve as scientific evidence, nor does the "counter-anecdote" serve as a valid, scientific refutation.

 

[Evo]

I concur - and part of that was exactly what I was saying before. To make myself clear: neither does the first anecdote serve as scientific evidence, nor does the "counter-anecdote" serve as a valid, scientific refutation.

But a counter-anecdote wouldn't be meant to be a scientific refutation, it's simply addressing an anecdote.

 

[russ_watters]

Right - my anecdote was flawed for the same reson as his (it is a coincidence that means nothing). The point of my anecdote was simply to highlight the flaw. There's no such thing as a "scientific refutation" here and I didn't intend it to be one.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Rather than derail the discussion with anecdotes, why not stick to the published evidence cited in the op?

 

[Evo]

Rather than derail the discussion with anecdotes, why not stick to the published evidence cited in the op?

Do you have a link to the published evidence? There is nothing furnished in your link to the one Israeli study.

Found it -
The same study and one says smoking, & the other says cell phones.

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

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 = 0.87; p = 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.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/kwm325v1

Wow, this Israeli study on the effects of smoking causing parotid cancer is virtually the same as the one saying it's cell phone use.

Smoking and risk of parotid gland tumors: a nationwide case-control study.

Sadetzki S, Oberman B, Mandelzweig L, Chetrit A, Ben-Tal T, Jarus-Hakak A, Duvdevani S, Cardis E, Wolf M.

Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Unit, Gertner Institute, Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel. siegals@gertner.health.gov.il

BACKGROUND: Because existing data regarding the relation between smoking and salivary gland tumors are sparse, tobacco is currently not classified as a salivary gland carcinogen. The objective of the current study was to assess the association between smoking and benign and malignant parotid gland tumors (PGTs) in a nationwide study. METHODS: The sample included 459 patients with incident PGT, aged > or =18 years, who were diagnosed between 2001 and 2003 and a group of 1265 individually matched, population-based controls. Analyses of the risk of PGT associated with various smoking variables were performed by using conditional logistic regression. Data also were stratified by histologic type; statistical significance tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Ever smoking cigarettes was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.66 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.31-2.11) for developing a PGT. The risk was strongest for early ages at smoking initiation, and trends of increasing risk were observed with increasing smoking intensity, pack-years, latent period, and smoking duration (P for trend <.001 for each). Analysis by histologic type indicated remarkably high risks for Warthin tumor (OR for ever cigarette smokers: 15.3; 95% CI, 6.1-38.5). For pleomorphic adenomas and malignant tumors, the risks associated with ever smoking were 1.01 (95% CI, 0.75-1.37) and 1.69 (95% CI, 0.81-3.51), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking plays an important role in the development of Warthin tumor. Although no association was observed for pleomorphic adenoma, the possible indication of increased risk of malignant tumors requires further investigation in larger studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18361448

 

[baywax]

I've noticed 2 reports over the last 3 days about this correlation. The jist of it is that the electromagnetic radiation of a cell phone poses a higher risk to foetuses, new borns and younger children up to the teens... adults seem to be able to screen out the waves with denser craniums (and lots of dead brain cells ).

I'll find the articles now...

here's one from the industry itself

Test Find Possible Link
Cell Phones & Brain Cancer

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/cell_phone_cancer_link.htm

and...

Pittsburgh cancer center warns of cell phone risks
By JENNIFER C. YATES and SETH BORENSTEIN – 1 day ago

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwzQ6Jsq3cSWa721yR84l99_pnlAD923S7T82

and from CTV... the private Canadian broadcasting corporation...

Prominent cancer doctor warns of cellphone risks

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080724/cellphone_risks_080724/20080724?hub=CTVNewsAt11

There's more but they seem to point back to the 2 latest studies.

I seem to remember that everytime lawyer Johnny Cockrane was being photographed he was on his cell phone. Now he's dead from a brain tumour.

However, I've never seen Teddy Kennedy use a cell phone... and he is reported to have contracted a brain tumour.

My guess is that radiating your head, to any degree, can be hazardous to your health. I think that's why they invented hats.

 

[Evo]

Baywax, look at my post above yours. The same study claims both smoking and cell phone use.

Ooops?

 

[baywax]

Baywax, look at my post above yours. The same study claims both smoking and cell phone use.

Ooops?

Could be. I've linked a few studies one out of Pittsburgh... not Isreal.

Its Friday and my cell phone is either off or out of power.

Interesting developments with charging up small devices without
plugging in... I'm trying to find a thread for that topic. Engineering? Electronics?

They're using radio waves in some cases... charging at 3 metres.

 

[mgb_phys]

The difficulty of doing a stuy in most countries is how do you find people who don't use a cell phone and aren't around them?

It's like the famous study in Sweden in the 80s that led to all those MPRII stickers on your monitors. They wanted to know if VDUs caused health problems, so compared people who used them a lot =stock market traders with people that didn't have TVs at all = an Amish like sect of dairy farmers.
Amazingly the VDU users suffered more miscarriages!

 

[Gokul43201]

Baywax, look at my post above yours. The same study claims both smoking and cell phone use.

Ooops?

It's possible they just used the same sample set for a number of studies and decided to publish individual results in separate papers - for whatever reason.

 

[Moonbear]

It's possible they just used the same sample set for a number of studies and decided to publish individual results in separate papers - for whatever reason.

That's my guess. Given the limited number of patients with parotid gland tumors in the first place, it's likely they had little choice than to use the same population. Or, it might have been two arms of the same study published separately. Afterall, one is saying there is no effect of cell phone use (if anything, the odds ratio is suggestive that the cell phone users leaned toward reduced tumor incidence, though clearly it was far from statistically significant) and the other did find a strong effect of smoking. I'll look into the full articles to see if more is said about it.

 

[Evo]

It's possible they just used the same sample set for a number of studies and decided to publish individual results in separate papers - for whatever reason.

That's what I am thinking, but they claim the same group had parotid cancer caused by smoking, and then the same group has parotid cancer caused by cell phone use?

Anyway MB is going to try to find the original studies and find out what's going on. I just think it's rather peculiar.

 

[Moonbear]

That's what I am thinking, but they claim the same group had parotid cancer caused by smoking, and then the same group has parotid cancer caused by cell phone use?

Anyway MB is going to try to find the original studies and find out what's going on. I just think it's rather peculiar.

No, the first study found NO association between cell phone use and parotid tumors. I just finished reading it. There was more of an association of handedness, but that was similar in the matched controls who did not use cell phones. They note in that study there appeared to be an association with smoking, so the second study is a follow-up on that.

Here's the key portions of the results:

No increased risk of PGT was seen for any of the exposure measures tested (regular use, time since start, duration of use, cumulative number of calls, and cumulative call time) for the total group, the malignant group, and the benign group. These results were substantially unchanged after controlling for smoking.

Among the 284 cases who were regular users, 155 (54.6 percent) reported ipsilateral use, 101 (35.6 percent) contralateral use, and 27 (9.5 percent) use on both sides (table 4). Based on Inskip's method, the relative risk for ipsilateral compared with contralateral use was 1.32 (p = 0.001).

The proportions of cases and controls whose handedness corresponded to their side of phone use were similar (69 percent and 70 percent, respectively) (p = 0.86) (table 5).

American Journal of Epidemiology 2008 167(4):457-467

And it is the same population. The later article discloses this, so not a problem:

A series of international case-control studies of the association between cell phone use and several types of head tumors (INTERPHONE) was recently conducted in 13 countries. While the studies in most of the countries included malignant PGTs, only Israel and 2 other countries also included benign PGTs. Among the data collected in the studies were details of smoking history.

Cancer 2008 112(9): 1974-1982

 

[Evo]

No, the first study found NO association between cell phone use and parotid tumors. I just finished reading it.

So the news articles are wrong then.

New research published in the American Journal of Epidemiology says that regular mobile phone use may increase your risk of developing tumors. AFP reports that Israeli researchers found that frequent cell phone users—described as people who chatter on mobiles more than 22 hours a month—had a nearly 50 percent higher risk than others of developing a tumor on the parotid gland (the largest of the salivary glands on the side of the face just in front of the ear). The risk was even greater, AFP reports, if users always held the phone to the same ear, did not use hands-free devices or were in rural areas. The study included 402 benign and 58 malignant incident cases of parotid gland tumors diagnosed in Israel in patients 18 years of age or older from 2001 to 2003. "Analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (like heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks," said an abstract of the article obtained by AFP

Ivan's OP link to this blurb in Sciam http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-of-the-weekis

 

[elkface]

I posted a request for this elsewhere, but I think I'm more likely to get an answer here - by what mechanism might cell phone radiation (low-frequency EMFs) cause tumors? I'm not so worried about the cell phone aspect of it, but it would be nice to know exactly how low-intensity, long-term exposure to RF and below EMFs are proposed to affect the human body.