Smartphones and radiation health effects

[dRic2]

Is it just me or lately there is a big fuss about this? I keep running into news of a recent study that has found smartphones may induce cancer on rats and so on...

Did they really find something relevant or is it just the same old story?

 

[fresh_42]

Is it just me or lately there is a big fuss about this? I keep running into news of a recent study that has found smartphones may induce cancer on rats and so on...

Did they really find something relevant or is it just the same old story?

As long as you cannot name a peer reviewed study, aka publication, it is the same old story. The comparisons with mice and rats often fail to respect the difference in magnitudes. If rodents are exposed to anything in extreme overdoses, cancer is almost a natural consequence.

Please name a publication which we can discuss, for otherwise this thread will be doomed to pure speculation.
Send me an appropriate link of such a study per PM. Until then this thread will be closed.

 

[fresh_42]

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2018/7910754/
Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor

Alasdair Philips, Denis L. Henshaw, Graham Lamburn, Michael J.O’Carroll

Objective. To investigate detailed trends in malignant brain tumour incidence over a recent time period.Methods. UK Office of National Statistics (ONS) data covering 81,135 ICD10 C71 brain tumours diagnosed in England (1995–2015) were used to calculate incidence rates (ASR) per 100k person–years, age–standardised to the European Standard Population (ESP–2013). Results. We report a sustained and highly statistically significant ASR rise in glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) across all ages. The ASR for GBM more than doubled from 2.4 to 5.0, with annual case numbers rising from 983 to 2531. Overall, this rise is mostly hidden in the overall data by a reduced incidence of lower-grade tumours. Conclusions. The rise is of importance for clinical resources and brain tumour aetiology. The rise cannot be fully accounted for by promotion of lower–grade tumours, random chance or improvement in diagnostic techniques as it affects specific areas of the brain and only one type of brain tumour. Despite the large variation in case numbers by age, the percentage rise is similar across the age groups, which suggests widespread environmental or lifestyle factors may be responsible. This article reports incidence data trends and does not provide additional evidence for the role of any particular risk factor.

 

[jrmichler]

My own opinion is that cell phone cancer will be shown to be the same as high voltage power line cancer. There was a scare about electromagnetic fields from high voltage power lines causing cancer back in the 1980's. The initial scare was, I believe, caused by a study that showed increased risk of cancer in people living near high voltage power lines. Then, somebody realized that people living near high voltage power lines tended to be from lower income groups that had higher rates of cancer due to lifestyle factors. That lead to further studies.

A good summary of the power line electromagnetic cancer scare situation is at: http://large.stanford.edu/publications/crime/references/moulder/moulder.pdf. If you look at the plots on pages 12, 18, 19, 23, 24, and 33, the argument can be made that about half of the studies show that electromagnetic fields decrease cancer.

It is known that a significant portion of cancers are related to lifestyle. Here is one reference: https://journals.lww.com/journalppo/Abstract/2015/03000/Lifestyle_and_Cancer_Risk.9.aspx. Before linking cell phones to cancer, it is necessary to rigorously compare the lifestyles of heavy cell phone users to non cell phone users. Good search terms for more information: lifestyle cancer risk.

 

[Evo]

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jeph/2018/7910754/
Brain Tumours: Rise in Glioblastoma Multiforme Incidence in England 1995–2015 Suggests an Adverse Environmental or Lifestyle Factor

Alasdair Philips, Denis L. Henshaw, Graham Lamburn, Michael J.O’Carroll

Thanks fresh for posting the study the OP sent you that you requested.

That study only had one blurb near the bottom referring to two other studies about cell phones. I searched on the studies and found this paper on them.

The largest study conducted to date was the INTERPHONE study, which was conducted in 13 countries with 16 centers. This was an interview-based case-control study and involved 2409 meningioma, 2708 glioma cases and matched controls. The studies included patients 30–59 years. The results showed the absence of increased risk of glioma with use of mobile phones. There was suspicious of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but further investigation is needed in order to draw safe conclusions [20]. It is of note that the overall ORs in some of the included studies were <1.0, suggesting possible methodological drawbacks. In fact in the studies included in the INTERPHONE study no blinding was used. Finally a large prospective study that investigated the association of mobile phone use and incidence of intracranial tumors and other cancers in 791,710 middle-aged women in UK found no appreciable association for glioma or meningioma [28]. A Danish cohort study that included 358,403 subscription holders accrued 3.8 million person years found no increased risk for glioma even for individuals with more than 13 years of subscription [29]. Other older studies also showed no strong relation between mobile phone use and gliomas (Table 1) [10–16].

Conclusion
Although some small studies have showed a connection between intracranial tumors occurrence and mobile phone usage, this effect was not verified in larger series. The fact that some studies showed a reduced cancer risk, from biological point of view is difficult to believe that microwave exposure prevent brain tumors, thus possible metholodological errors in these studies should be sought. Furthermore, random errors or selection bias cannot be excluded in these studies [31]. Nevertheless, there was some evidence to suggest a connection between heavy mobile phone use and increased risk for brain tumor occurrence, especially for gliomas. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to study the possibility of long term use and gliomas. For meningiomas, acoustic neuromas and pituitary tumors the results are inconclusive. Thus, there is certainly a need for more studies and continuous surveillance.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4690283/

 

[dRic2]

Thanks fresh for posting the study the OP sent you that you requested.

I didn't. I was actually asking for some articles about it so thank you all very much.

From what I've read it seems there is no evident connection. I'll keep searching though when I have time.

thanks again

 

[fresh_42]

I didn't. I was actually asking for some articles about it so thank you all very much.

Well, in a way you did. Your pop science article you sent me led to another pop science article in a British newspaper which fortunately has linked its source. So "smart phones cause cancer" was a result of the cited study, although the study doesn't say so. Another example, how scientific work is abused just to get a catchy (and cheap!) headliner.

From what I've read it seems there is no evident connection. I'll keep searching though when I have time

I wouldn't, for exactly that reason: Starting at a headline and then digging out the source usually (> 99%) won't leave much of said headline!

 

[BWV]

Before linking cell phones to cancer, it is necessary to rigorously compare the lifestyles of heavy cell phone users to non cell phone users.

And where can you find non cellphone users these days?Interestingly the 5.0 ASR per 100K for the UK is will above the US:

With an incidence rate of 3.19 per 100,000 persons in the United States and a median age of 64 years, it is uncommon in children. The incidence is 1.6 times higher in males compared to females and 2.0 times higher in Caucasians compared to Africans and Afro-Americans, with lower incidence in Asians and American Indians.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470003/

 

[dRic2]

Another example, how scientific work is abused just to get a catchy (and cheap!) headliner.

I wouldn't, for exactly that reason: Starting at a headline and then digging out the source usually (> 99%) won't leave much of said headline!

That is absolutelty right. Sometimes I forget what theese websites are all about.

But you would not believe how many articles of this kind I ran into during the last month... It was like everyday. So, even through I'm very skeptical about this stuff, I began to wonder.