The source of the concerns are the so-called electromagnetic fields (EMF). Daily, we are exposed to two types of EMF, namely (1) extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF) which come from electronic appliances and power lines and (2) radiofrequency radiation (RF) which comes from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones, base stations, antennas, and broadcast transmission towers.



Most of the research studies on the issue of RF exposure were conducted in the framework of the INTERPHONE study, a multi-country series of case-controlled studies. The countries involved were Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. The studies looked at the associations between mobile phone use and the incidence of brain tumors such as glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma and cancer of the parotid gland. The Interphone studies were funded and supported by several international and governmental agencies as well as industry groups like the Global System for Mobile communications Association (GSMA) and the Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF). Several independent studies have also been also performed.

Let's take a look at the two sides of the coin.

THOSE WHO SAY NO

The majority of articles published during the last decade report that no association was observed between mobile phone use and increased cancer risk and as a result several organizations say that there is no sufficient scientific evidence to prove that prolonged RF exposure from mobile phones can cause cancer.

(1) According to the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Denmark, a study involving 420,000 Danish mobile phone users did not identify an increased risk for cancer. This is the largest published study so far on the health effects of mobile phone use.

(2) In laboratory studies involving rats and mice (in vivo studies), exposure to wireless communication signals did not significantly increase the incidence of tumors.

(3) In vitro studies showed no induction of cell transformation by low-level RF radiation.

(4) The French INTERPHONE study did not find significant increased risk for meningioma or neuroma in mobile phone users. Neither did the German and the British studies.

(5) In a large US study involving over 12,000 participants, no overall increased risk for brain tumors were found about mobile phone users.

(6) The US National Cancer Institute says the majority of studies conducted on this subject do not show any association between mobile phone use and cancer.

(7) The World Health Organization (WHO) says that current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers.

(8) Cancer Research UK says that radiation coming from phone handsets and base stations are too low to cause damage to human DNA and cause cancer.

THOSE WHO SAY YES

Many consumer groups are wary of the results of the INTERPHONE studies because of the phone industry's strong role in the funding. The involvement of GSMA and MMF is not unusual. Industry-funded research is quite common in biomedical science. Unfortunately, there have been recent controversies regarding conflicts of interest on the part of scientists who obtain funding from the pharmaceutical industry. These incidents sadly put a question mark on the integrity of many scientific studies that are valid and bona fide, regardless of sources of funding.

There are also groups and individuals who are convinced of the hazards of EMF. Contrary to popular belief that only lay people and consumer groups believe in the mobile phone-cancer link, many scientists are actually taking a second look at the evidence at hand.

(1) An international working group of scientists formed the BioInitiative Working Group and prepared a report that raises serious concerns about the safety of existing public limits that regulate how much EMF is allowable from power lines, cell phones, and many other sources of EMF exposure in daily life. The BioInitiative Report looked at evidence from published and unpublished data on the links between EMF exposure and immune disorders, stress response, neurological and behavioural problems and even studies on childhood cancers (e.g. leukemia) and breast cancer. One of their conclusions is that there is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia. In addition, the report also found that the current safety standards for exposure to EMF from cell phones and other handsets are not safe at all. As supporting evidence, they cited studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks.

The BioInitaive Report also found ELF exposure to be a risk factor for breast cancer and possibly other cancers as well. The Working Group is clearly demanding a re-examination of the safety standards of the telecommunications industry. However, the report does not clearly define the group's stand about RF and cancer.

(2) The International Agency for Cancer Research classifies ELF as a possible human carcinogen.

(3) In the case of RF, Swedish researchers led by L. Hardell found increased risk for brain tumors among 2,162 users of cordless handsets and cellular phones. These researchers were the only ones who found these associations in analysing data from the INTERPHONE studies. They also looked at associations with risks for other kinds of cancer such as testicular cancer and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma with inconclusive results.

(4) Another group of Swedish researchers looked at the incidence of acoustic neuroma in a group of 752 people. Their findings did not show a link between short-term mobile phone use and increased risk for acoustic neuroma. However, a link was observed when taking long-term phone use (e.g. at least 10 years) into consideration.

(5) In 2000, a class action suit was filed against Verizon, Motorola and other wireless companies led by former employees who developed brain tumors. So far, no damages have been awarded.

(6) In early 2008, Israeli researchers found a positive dose-response trend between cell phone use and parotid gland tumors in a study that looked at 1,266 individuals.

(7) The head of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Dr. Ronald Herberman issued a memo in July 2008 warning the institute's staff against their children's use of mobile phones. He based his concerns on unpublished data and the fact that " it takes too long to get answers from science...people should take action now.

(8) A study by Finnish researchers published in 2008 showed that RF-EMF can alter protein expression in human skin cells. This is the first study to report that RF-EMF can cause changes at the molecular level.

THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY A CLEAR-CUT ANSWER TO THE QUESTION REMAINS ELUSIVE.

(1) Sample size. Studies with small sample sizes lack statistical power. Many studies published have too small sample sizes to have convincing results.

(2) Study designs. Study designs are difficult to standardize, making pooling of study results also difficult.

(3) Data collection. Data on exposure is mostly based on self-reports of phone use. Unfortunately, these recalls are frequently inaccurate. It has been observed, for example, that people tend to underestimate the number of calls but overestimate the duration of calls they make.

(4) Exposure. There many sources of EMFs around us. Radiation may come from cellular phones, hand-held phones, cordless handsets, base stations, and telecom masts. Other household appliances including microwave ovens also emit radiation. It is extremely difficult to find unexposed study participants which can be used as study controls.

(5) Time. Studying the health effects of phone use takes time. Prospective studies are still more reliable that retrospective studies but they take longer to complete. A Swedish study found an increased risk of acoustic neuroma only after at least 10 years of phone use. Most short-term studies came up with negative results.

(6) Lack of data. Most RF exposure data available are on adult phone users. Very limited RF exposure data on children are available. The hypothesis that children and adolescents as developing organisms with developing organs are especially vulnerable cannot be tested at this point in time.

WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

In cases such as this when there is a high degree of scientific uncertainty, the World Health Organization recommends following the policies of precautionary principle, prudent avoidance, and ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable). These cautionary policies were released in March 2000. It's been more than 8 years and the policies remain the same. Many countries in Europe recommend similar policies.

The recommended use of hands-free technology by the US FDA and other health agencies works more for safety when phoning while driving but does not really address the safety issue of RF. Consumer groups have been demanding for years that phone makers install radiation blocking devices on their handsets. So far, their demands have remained unheeded.

Let's hope that science comes up with the answer soon. In the meantime, it's up to us to make the decisions concerning mobile phone use for ourselves and our families.