CellphonesAndCancer
Latest
Cellphones are dangerous / not dangerous: little tykes under the spotlight
In the rough and tumble debate surrounding the mobile phone's ability to cause cancer, both sides agree that our young ones -- indeed, some of the heaviest users -- could be at an increased risk for cellular-induced tumors. According to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the radio emissions from mobile devices penetrate much deeper into the brains of children, and in the case of little tykes ages five to eight, their noggins will absorb twice the energy of the average adult. This, combined with their developing nervous systems, has brought concern for the welfare of our youngest mobile-savvy citizens, and led to a European study of nearly 1,000 (informed?) participants. Data was gathered over a four-year period, which relied upon self-reporting methods, where youngsters were found to not talk very often, and typically sent text messages instead -- big surprise, right? While long-term risks remain unknown, the researchers conclude that "a large and immediate risk of cellphones causing brain tumors in children can be excluded." In other words: little Suzy won't begin sprouting cancer cells overnight. While you doting parents may find comfort in the latest research, you might consider stopping short of giving the mischievous rascal an unlimited voice plan. After all, gossip still spreads best at the school yard. [Image courtesy Derek Olson (flickr)]
Cellphones are dangerous / not dangerous: Danish chatterbox edition
Concerned that a decade and a half of regular cellphone will have a long-term effect on your health? Hopefully the latest study conducted by members of the World Health Organization (WHO) will put your mind at ease. The examination followed nearly 3 million Danish adults, studying links between phone use and the formation of acoustic neuromas -- non-cancerous, slow-growing brain tumors that form on the main nerve that connects the inner ear to the brain. The study concluded that people who've used a handset for 11-15 years weren't any more likely to develop a tumor than those who don't use cellphones at all, though scientists are unsure that this is a long enough period of time to determine a significant correlation (or lack thereof). Still, this comes as refreshing news two months after the WHO released a study revealing that RF waves coming from phones are "potentially carcinogenic," due to a limited link to glioma and acoustic neuroma. Of course, none of these reports can actually conclude that cellphones cause cancer -- only that the two may be correlated. So, what does this latest study really do? It legitimizes the need to conduct more studies.
Cellphones are dangerous / not dangerous: cancer experts say 'What, me worry?'
If you haven't already gotten whiplash from the ongoing cellphone-cancer debate, a freshly released scientific review might just do the trick. In the paper, published Friday, a panel of experts from Britain, Sweden and the US conducted a thorough survey of previous studies, before concluding that existing literature is "increasingly against" the theory that cellphone use causes brain tumors in adults. The researchers also questioned the biological mechanisms underpinning this hypothesis, while acknowledging some lingering uncertainties, since data on childhood tumors and longer-term research are still lacking. The results come just a few weeks after the World Health Organization released its own literature review, in which it claimed that cell phones should be considered "potentially carcinogenic." But Anthony Swerdlow, a professor at Britain's Institute of Cancer Research and leader of the most recent investigation, said his group's work doesn't necessarily contradict the WHO, since the latter was simply seeking to evaluate cancer risks according to its own "pre-set classification system" -- under which things like pickled vegetables and coffee are also considered "potentially carcinogenic." Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that the debate will die down anytime soon, though Swerdlow expects more definitive conclusions within the next few years -- assuming, of course, that all of our brains haven't turned to oatmeal by then.
