Banner
    Cell Phones, Brain Cancer, Evidence
    By Michael White | January 27th 2010 05:01 AM | 25 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    More Articles
    All Articles
    About Michael

    Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature,

    ...

    View Michael's Profile
    It's not hard to find scare stories about cell phones and brain cancer. On the other hand, numerous randomized, double-blind studies have debunked extreme claims of negative health effects of EMF exposure.

    So what should you believe? Is the cell phone industry, like the tobacco industry in the past, covering up evidence for the harmful effects of cells phones?
    It's not hard to find scare stories about cell phones and brain cancer. On the other hand, numerous randomized, double-blind studies have debunked extreme claims of negative health effects of EMF exposure.

    So what should you believe? Is the cell phone industry, like the tobacco industry in the past, covering up evidence for the harmful effects of cells phones?

    Let's start with the biology. Cancer generally requires mutation, i.e., DNA damage, and electromagnetic energy less energetic than high-energy UV does not have the capability to directly damage DNA. Cell phone signals, radio waves, WiFi - none of these have enough energy to break the chemical bonds that hold your DNA together.

    This of course doesn't rule out indirect paths to brain cancer. Biology is messy, and there could easily be something more to this than the relationship between the wavelength and energy of photons. Perhaps cell phone signals influence some other (currently unknown) process going in your neurons, and that process ultimately results in DNA damage. Although there has been speculation about what such a process might be, there are no really obvious candidates, and currently there's not much evidence that unambiguously supports an indirect mechanism.

    However, the absence of a known mechanism for a cell phone-cancer link doesn't mean that such a link doesn't exist. In the absence of a known mechanism, epidemiological studies might still be able to find such a link. Such studies are being conducted, but, overall, the results are inconclusive: some studies find an association between cell phones and cancer, others don't. There are a variety of methodological problems, like accurately surveying cell phone use over long time periods, that make answering this question tough. The biggest factor is time: current studies just haven't been carried on long enough, because 10 years ago cell phone use wasn't anything close to what it is now.

    To get a feel for the evidence, take a look at the conclusions of some recent meta-analyses of cell phone-brain cancer studies:

    Cellular phone use and brain tumor: a meta-analysis:

    CONCLUSIONS: We found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies.


    Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk: a review:

    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

    Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for > or =10 years:

    Of the 16 case-control studies, 11 gave results for > or =10 years' use or latency period. Most of these results were based on low numbers. An association with acoustic neuroma was found in four studies in the group with at least 10 years' use of a mobile phone. No risk was found in one study, but the tumour size was significantly larger among users. Six studies gave results for malignant brain tumours in that latency group. All gave increased odd ratios (OR), especially for ipsilateral exposure. In a meta-analysis, ipsilateral cell phone use for acoustic neuroma was OR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.3) and OR = 2.0, (1.2 to 3.4) for glioma using a tumour latency period of > or =10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for > or =10 years give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is highest for ipsilateral exposure.


    Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study:

    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.


    Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany)

    No excess of temporal glioma (p = 0.41) or meningioma (p = 0.43) was observed in cellular phone users as compared with nonusers. Cordless phone use was not related to either glioma risk or meningioma risk. In conclusion, no overall increased risk of glioma or meningioma was observed among these cellular phone users; however, for long-term cellular phone users, results need to be confirmed before firm conclusions can be drawn.


    Time trends in brain tumor incidence rates in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, 1974-2003:



    From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma increased by 0.5% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2% to 0.8%) among men and by 0.2% per year (95% CI = -0.1% to 0.5%) among women and that of meningioma increased by 0.8% per year (95% CI = 0.4% to 1.3%) among men, and after the early 1990s, by 3.8% per year (95% CI = 3.2% to 4.4%) among women. No change in incidence trends were observed from 1998 to 2003, the time when possible associations between mobile phone use and cancer risk would be informative about an induction period of 5-10 years.


    Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: a meta-analysis:

    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.


    Mobile phones and brain tumours: a review of epidemiological research

    There are reports of small associations between MP-use ipsilateral to the tumour for greater than 10 years, for both acoustic neuroma and glioma, but the present paper argues that these are especially prone to confounding by recall bias. The reported associations are in need of replication with methods designed to minimise such bias before they can be treated as more than suggestive.



    Unfortunately, we need to learn to make decisions in the presence of scientific uncertainty. Any cell-phone cancer links, if they exist, ought to become more clear within the next few as the long-term studies keep coming in. If a significant link isn't found by then, personally, I'll be satisfied, but my prediction is that, in the absence of a conclusive link, we'll continue to see debate and more studies that do little to resolve the question.


    Read the feed:
    /

    Comments

    Gerhard Adam
    One of the problems I'm concerned about is the framing of the question.  While I would agree that a causal relationship is unlikely, it isn't out of the question that secondary causes could play a role.  For example, if a tumor is already present or developing is it possible E-M radiation may interfere with the immune response or possibly accelerate cellular metabolism to "assist" a more rapid development of a tumor.

    Especially if there are accelerated activities, they could outpace natural responses and consequently while there is no direct cause, indirectly the E-M radiation was certainly a factor in its development.
    Gerhard Adam | 01/27/10 | 12:48 PM
    adaptivecomplexity
    That's a reasonable question, and it's exactly why I'm arguing that, even if the potential mechanism isn't obvious, we can't dismiss possibilities like this out of hand.  Biology is messy, and there could be more involved here than E=hc/λ.
    —
    Mike
    Michael White | 01/27/10 | 13:02 PM
    But of course this is moot without a strong statistical correlation. Otherwise there's no phenomenon to study.

    Bradley (not verified) | 01/27/10 | 13:36 PM
    adaptivecomplexity
    That's right - either we're going to find one in the next, 5 or so years, as more long term studies come out, or we'll get nothing but a steady dribble of contradictory studies that sometimes find an effect, and sometimes don't.
    In the latter case, we can reasonably conclude that there is no link, or at least not a big one.

    —
    Mike
    Michael White | 01/27/10 | 15:35 PM
    Gerhard Adam
    I'm not convinced that we're necessarily asking the right questions. 
    From a study in 1985:
    Cellular responses have been studied after 24 h continuous exposure of cells concurrently to four experimental conditions; i.e. no EMF (E-M-), magnetic field only (M +, 1·0 G rms), electric field only (E +, 300 mA/m2 rms), and combined electric plus magnetic fields at these intensities (E + M +). Under these conditions, both cell lines demonstrated significantly increased colony formation in soft agar and increased expression of tumor associated antigens after exposure to E + M + and to M + as compared to unexposed controls.
    http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09553008514552681
    Similarly when you consider that a bulletin released by the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (1999), makes a specific point about differentiating between what constitutes a health hazard versus what constitutes a biological effect.  Their point, understandably, is oriented towards trying to determine safety standards, which isn't the same objective as trying to determine whether such radiation has effects.

    In fact, there's a paper from 1993, "Electric fields and Cells" which raises quite a few points referencing other work that suggests that there may be significant biological effects, while clearly not suggesting that there are particular health risks.

    In part what raises my concern is that it seems that older studies tend to reference this issue as biological, while newer studies seem to concentrate solely on whether cell phones are a safety hazard.  In my view, these are radically different questions.

    So, I guess my concern is whether we're answering a scientific question or an economic one.
    Gerhard Adam | 01/27/10 | 17:24 PM
    adaptivecomplexity
    People are still conducting the types of studies you describe; I just didn't list them for this post since i focused on epidemiology. If you search Pubmed, you can find a bunch of recent studies looking at the biological effects, as opposed to safety effects. 
    —
    Mike
    Michael White | 01/27/10 | 17:58 PM
    logicman
    I'm not convinced that we're necessarily asking the right questions.
    Me too, Gerhard.

    Could the reported effects be more to do with people's habits?  The human ear is not adapted to being pressed against a warm plastic object for hours on end.  The consequent temperature rise in the external and internal meatus may benefit harmful bacteria.  It is already known that bacteria entering the ear can cause brain damage, as in otitis media.

    The eustachian tube, at 35mm long, seems to approximate to the length of an antenna matched to the frequencies under investigation.  I wonder if that fact is relevant to the mobile phone studies.  The only research I am aware of that is in any way related to this is Investigation of eustachian tube activity with perfect sequences.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18288624
    Patrick Lockerby | 01/27/10 | 17:53 PM
    Its nice to come across a blog that talks some sense, where neither side of the debate are making outrageous claims. Let me just say from the outset that I am electrosensitive and have been living with this thing day in and day out for around eight years.
    I know the problem is real. I am not waiting for the science to prove it exists to start doing something about it. I know the science will eventually get there. It won't be too long before the long-term studies come out. But you can be sure that given the financial pressures that are in play in the cell phone industry even when that first highly conclusive study is produced manufacturers will have sufficient ingenuity and marketing power to belittle and disrepute this information.
    Remember it has been scientifically proven since the mid-1970s that living within proximity to overhead power lines is detrimental to your health, and yet 30 years down the line, in the UK anyway, we are still building houses underneath these same overhead power lines!
    So for those of you out there that are still in doubt about the seriousness of the consequences of electro magnetic fields on our health, watch this space, I will prove you wrong!

    Lloyd Burrell (not verified) | 02/03/10 | 04:59 AM
    logicman
    Its nice to come across a blog that talks some sense, where neither side of the debate are making outrageous claims.
    That's why it's called scientificblogging.com, Lloyd. :)

    Much of the law is operated on the basis of proof to logical and scientific standards. 
    This link to a legal article on emf may be of interest :
    Perceived Risks of EMFs and Landowner Compensation
    Patrick Lockerby | 02/03/10 | 05:35 AM
    rychardemanne
    That's right, earlier research was largely concerned with power lines and 50-60Hz effects, then in mid-1980s a lot of research was stopped as mobile phone masts started sprouting. Time to start digging again, although the modulated frequencies are different, going even lower into brain operating frequencies.
    I've written about em hypersensitivity - I wish you well.
    Richard Mankiewicz | 03/12/10 | 12:51 PM
    Michael,
    The meta-analyses look good so far. Good points. However, I have a couple of questions.

    First, almost all of these meta-analyses are looking at brain tumors like glioma or neuroma. But one of the emerging dangers possibly from cell phone use appears to be parotid gland tumors. Are there any meta-analyses examining this particular kind of tumor?

    Second, when you say,

    Let's start with the biology. Cancer generally requires mutation, i.e., DNA damage, and electromagnetic energy less energetic than high-energy UV does not have the capability to directly damage DNA. Cell phone signals, radio waves, WiFi - none of these have enough energy to break the chemical bonds that hold your DNA together.

    How do you square that with studies done by Phillips, et al and others that do show cell phone strength & frequency radiation can cause DNA damage? Studies examining this have shown both effect and no effect, but it seems like it's still an open question.

    JSD (not verified) | 02/08/10 | 17:20 PM
    adaptivecomplexity
    Are there any meta-analyses examining this particular kind of tumor?


    I don't know. There are some studies looking at the relationship between these tumors and cell phone use, but I'm not aware of any meta-analysis. I would guess that these would still fall in the same category as the others: there is no consensus yet, and we have to wait for longer-term studies and deal with the scientific uncertainty.

    How do you square that with studies done by Phillips, et al and others that do show cell phone strength&frequency radiation can cause DNA damage?


    These studies don't overturn E=hv or what we know about the energy of covalent bonds in DNA. The mechanism would have to be indirect, such as via reactive oxygen species, which seems to be the most popular hypothesis. As you say, there are studies that go either way in terms an effect:

    During the years 1990-2003, a large number of investigations were conducted using animals, cultured rodent and human cells as well as freshly collected human blood lymphocytes to determine the genotoxic potential of exposure to nonionizing radiation emitted from extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (EMF). Among the 63 peer reviewed scientific reports, the conclusions from 29 studies (46%) did not indicate increased damage to the genetic material, as assessed from DNA strand breaks, incidence of chromosomal aberrations (CA), micronuclei (MN), and sister chromatid exchanges (SCE), in EMF exposed cells as compared with sham exposed and/or unexposed cells, while those from 14 investigations (22%) have suggested an increase in such damage in EMF exposed cells. The observations from 20 other studies (32%) were inconclusive. This study reviews the investigations published in peer reviewed scientific journals during 1990-2003 and attempts to identify probable reason(s) for the conflicting results. Recommendations are made for future research to address some of the controversial observations.

    —
    Mike
    Michael White | 02/08/10 | 18:25 PM
    rychardemanne
    I can see I'm going to have to write about this here on SB. There is a lot of research that mobile phone signals are damaging to humans and biological systems in general. I'm writing on other topics at the moment so will add it to my list, here's what I wrote about 18 months ago:
    http://www.xomba.com/why_mobile_phones_are_really_dangerous_the_resonanc...

    The huge red herring propagated by the telcos is the thermal effects of microwaves. This diversionary tactic works because people associate microwaves with their ovens. The dangers to humans and especially the brain are not so much the microwave carrier frequencies but the pulsed signals that they carry. You can hear some of them if your mobile is near a speaker. Those pulsed frequencies operate at frequencies inside the normal operating range of the brain and will resonate with it. These are euphemistically called non-thermal effects as people are too dumb to know what resonance means, but it is the same trick as having "non-lethal" weapons.

    Look at resonance effects, not thermal. That is the danger.

    Oh yeah, and investigations have shown the WHO to be totally corrupt in their mobile phone policies, with studies funded by slush-funds donated to hospitals by telcos. Luckily some European countries are trying to investigate this seriously. 
    Richard Mankiewicz | 03/11/10 | 21:05 PM
    adaptivecomplexity
    There is a lot of research that mobile phone signals are damaging to humans and biological systems in general.
    Uh, no. The evidence is still ambiguous - both at the epidemiological level and and the cell biological level. How about you start by explaining how resonance is supposed to cause problems for a cell? What does it do to a nerve cell, or whatever cell type you're hypothesizing is involved in cell phone-brain cancer link? It's not just Europeans who are investigating this. It's a topic of broad interest among US researchers too. The evidence at this point is just ambiguous, plain and simple.
    —
    Mike
    Michael White | 03/12/10 | 10:21 AM
    rychardemanne
    I think this is going to develop very much like the tobacco research. I wrote about a meta-analysis that separated tobacco-hired scientists from independent researchers that found a very significant difference in results for the smoking and Alzheimer's link. I think someone should do the same for mobile phone research. It's not just about science but about money and power and more.

    On this latter point, this is interesting:
    http://www.campaignfortruth.com/Eclub/241103/CTM%20-%20cellphones.htm

    Anyway, have re-read the article and thread and there already seem to be some links above to papers. Also

    Non-thermal DNA breakage by mobile-phone radiation (1800 MHz) in human fibroblasts and in transformed GFSH-R17 rat granulosa cells in vitro.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15869902

    This article gives an overview of one current theory on how ELF affects the calcium in cell membranes, that eventually causes cell death.
    http://www.hese-project.org/hese-uk/en/papers/goldsworthy_bio_weak_em_07...

    I've just written about EM fields inside the brain and the whole system is highly non-linear so that there are resonant frequencies amid an apparent sea of noise. The frequencies of modulated pulses is far more important than their energy. If energy was the only consideration then we would all fry inside an MRI machine. Not only do we not, although we do warm up a bit, but in spite of the overwhelming field strength we are still able to remain conscious and think inside one. The high frequencies are less important, it is the lower frequencies that need investigating.


    Richard Mankiewicz | 03/12/10 | 13:18 PM
    adaptivecomplexity
    The tobacco comparison is just bullshit. You're making sweeping claims about this with no evidence.
    You missed the point of my article - citing just single studies is insufficient, because those studies are contradicted by other papers. In other words, the field is not at a point where one paper can be conclusive. At this point, there are only speculations about the biological mechanism that could be responsible for DNA damaged caused by non-ionizing radiation, and whether EMF-induced DNA damage is real has not been settled because some papers show a (very small in almost all cases) effect, other studies show nothing.

    There is no conspiracy here. We just have to learn to live with scientific uncertainty on many questions that we would like to know the answer to.
    —
    Mike
    Michael White | 03/13/10 | 09:50 AM
    Gerhard Adam
    Accordingly, they [epidemiologists] continue to stick with the traditional paradigm that “more is worse.” But, contrary to this view, experimental evidence continues to build showing that ELF magnetic fields can interact in decidedly nonlinear ways with tissue. (Again, this is hardly new information, having first been reported by Adey’s group in the mid-1970s.) Many epidemiologists are unaware (or even worse, dismissive) of those reports indicating ELF “windows” or “resonances,” a fact reflecting a general lack of awareness as to the extra interactive possibilities attached to EMFs.
    This lack of sophistication concerning EMF interactions was fully evident in the IARC deliberations. Consider the fact that no special mention was made of two reports that are very well known to the bioelectromagnetics community—Harland and Liburdy1 and the replicate study by Blackman et al.2—both of which bear directly on the key question as to whether very weak ELF magnetic fields are implicated in breast cancer. Even though these studies were particularly relevant to the issue of residential magnetic fields, they were indiscriminately grouped with other ELF experiments whose results reflected widely different types of exposure conditions. It is little wonder, therefore, that the laboratory evidence, as a whole, was classified as “inconsistent,” leaving the unwarranted impression that no clear conclusion was possible.
    http://www.microwavenews.com/news/backissues/j-a01issue.pdf
    Gerhard Adam | 03/12/10 | 18:48 PM
    adaptivecomplexity
    Gerhard, this still doesn't explain what resonance means in the context of a cell, or how it's supposed to affect biological processes. Epidemiologist may don't understand what the term resonance means in physics, but biophysicists who study DNA damage do. It just has very little significance for biology.
    —
    Mike
    Michael White | 03/13/10 | 09:53 AM
    rychardemanne
    OK, Michael, what you've just said is important. We're here "arguing amongst friends" so as to understand each other and maybe come up with some smart ideas that someone can follow up.
    Can you expand on it?

    To paraphrase: Epidemiologists don't know what resonance is. Biophysicists obviously do. But, you also say, it has very little significance for biology. Being closer to each other in the network of science, don't the biophysicists and epidemiologists share concepts?

    I know there are many more experiments to be done, but they all start with an idea. Seems like the sticking point here is the idea.
    Richard Mankiewicz | 03/13/10 | 10:41 AM
    Gerhard Adam
    This provides a general statement (which is my understanding, although I can't speak to other definitions that people may use).

    However, if I remember correctly there was greater interest in the result of weak magnetic fields, than in the electric fields.
    A third theory is the resonance theory. This theory suggests that EMF accelerates the movement of ions across cell membranes. Physicist Abraham Liboff of Oakland University in Michigan supports this theory, citing his observation that calcium ions cross cell membranes more quickly when influenced by electric fields.
    http://classes.colgate.edu/wpeck/fsem039/Power.html
    Another abstract entitled: Possible mechanism for the influence of weak magnetic fields on biological systems
    A physical mechanism is suggested for a resonant interaction of weak magnetic fields with biological systems. An ion inside a Ca2+ -binding protein is approximated by a charged oscillator. A shift in the probability of ion transition between different vibrational energy levels occurs when a combination of static and alternating magnetic fields is applied. This in turn affects the interaction of the ion with the surrounding ligands. The effect reaches its maximum when the frequency of the alternating field is equal to the cyclotron frequency of this ion or to some of its harmonics or sub-harmonics. A resonant response of the biosystem to the magnetic field results. The proposed theory permits a quantitative explanation for the main characteristics of experimentally observed effects.
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/112129794/abstract
    Gerhard Adam | 03/13/10 | 14:42 PM
    adaptivecomplexity
    My reply to this is long overdue, but both quotations do not contradict my claim that there is currently no well-supported, non-sepculative hypothesized biological mechanism for DNA damage by non-ionizing radiation.
    The first quote cites someone who is not a biologist, and it states the obvious - ion transporters in cell membranes can be influenced by electric fields.  That's not in doubt - what's in doubt is whether ion transporters in your brain are influenced by weak external fields in a way that causes harm.

    The second quote is a purely theoretical paper, which has little supporting evidence in vitro, and none in vivo.
    —
    Mike
    Michael White | 03/27/10 | 13:14 PM
    As is the case with tumors present in the other parts of the body, the precise reason for majority of the brain tumors is unclear. Hereditary factors, varied environmental contaminants, radiation and cigarette smoking has been associated to brain cancers, however, in majority of the cases no definite reason could be deciphered.

    Brain Cancer facts (not verified) | 03/25/10 | 01:48 AM
    3 billion subscribers worldwide .. Wow! Unfortunately the Cell phone industry is a very powerful lobby and it is hard to point finger at them. With the advent of smart phones .. more people are getting hooked to these devices which scares me even further. Will we see increased cases of cancer .. The thought scares me !!

    - Jessica

    Cancer Survivor (not verified) | 05/03/10 | 13:03 PM
    Michael, when you say that "there is currently no well-supported, non-speculative hypothesized biological mechanism for DNA damage by non-ionizing radiation", you are right. But you are missing the point. This is a false debate and its one which the cell phone industry is perpetuating for its own profit, see http://electricsense.com/2010/05/04/international-wireless-industry-know... The real issue, as was outlined by the Bio Initiative report is that EMFs have important effects biologically, yes biologically thats what matters. Ionising just means that the electrons are knocked out of matter, OK this what we haven't proved, but we have proved that biological reactions occur throughout the EM spectrum - speaking as a sufferer, there isnt a day goes by where I dont feel these reactions. Fact.

    Lloyd Burrell (not verified) | 05/05/10 | 09:30 AM
    If Cell phones are so safe, then why do ALL cell phone manuals tell you NOT to put these devices near your heads or bodies? Also, I lost a Son from brain cancer. If you don't think there is a connection between RADIATION from cell phones, towers, or WiFi, then please look up these links: My Son went to SDSU and is the graduate student these are referring too. Also, this tower is a HPWREN, High performance Wireless Research and Educational Network. A Backbone Node to the UCSD campus in San Diego. I also found out it is a," TETRA TOWER, Fusion Center," for Homeland Security! These Companies are killing people! Here are the links:
    www.thedailyaztec.com/city/deaths-may-be-linked-to-nasatir-1.1599952
    www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Coincidence-or-Cluster.html
    www.voiceofsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Coincidence-or-Cluster.html
    www.associatedcontent.com/video/157097/sdsu_room_haunted_by_cancer.html?...
    Please, everyone, find out what is on the tower where your kids attend school! Between my Son's cell phone and this tower, he and these other victim's NEVER had a chance!

    Anonymous (not verified) | 07/01/10 | 17:36 PM