Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Mobile Communications Fair Sponsored by Tech-Connect Presented by Tim Weber, PRA International February 23, 2010
Outline
Background/Introduction Definitions Commonly studied health risks What does science tell us? Do cell phones really cause cancer? What are the important conclusions? Concerns about kids & phones What is the future of the research? Q&A
Speakers Background
Introduction/History
Introduction/History, contd.
Each successive generation has operated at a higher frequency: more apps = more power Usage increasingand fast!
5% in 1998 67% (4.6 billion) in 20091 Almost half of US children aged 8-12 are cell phone users
International Telecommunications Union. The World in 2009: ICT Facts and Figures. http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/material/Telecom09_flyer.pdf
CTIA International Association for the Wireless Telecommunications Industry (www.ctia.org) RF-EMR (RF) Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation SAR Specific absorption rate; how much RF is absorbed into the body when exposed to a radiation source, such as a mobile device (measured in W/kg; 1.6 in US; 2.0 in EU) Meta-analysis analyzes multiple studies with similar research objectives
50/100 men and 25/100 women are color blind Odds Ratio: (p1/(1-p1))/(p2/(1-p2)) In our example:
(0.5/(1-0.5))/(0.25/(1-0.25)) (0.5/0.5)/(0.25/0.75) (1/(1/3)) = 3 p1 = probability of a man being color blind p2 = probability of a woman being color blind
Same groups of men & women Relative Risk: p1/p2 In our example:
0.5/0.25 = 2
Conclusion: The risk of a man being color blind is twice that of a woman
Case-Control Studies
To date, most widely used tool for studying health risks of cell phone usage
Cell phone usage has mushroomed in just the last decade or so Relies on memory and anecdotal evidence of past usage Typically in-person or telephone interviews
Possible association with cancer Source of distraction while driving Poor fertility/DNA damage in males Miscarriage/morbidity in unborn children CNS (migraine, vertigo, ALS, MS, epilepsy) Interference with pacemakers, hearing aids, and defibrillators Exposure to radiation from cell phone towers
RF-EMR is similar in energy to AM/FM radio waves, microwaves, and infrared heat lamps
non-ionizing radiation not capable of breaking molecular bonds (e.g., DNA) does not enter body tissues same type of radiation used in MRI technology
Searching on cell phones cancer returns almost 24 million Google hits and 300 PubMed articles The American Cancer Society, FDA, National Cancer Institute, FCC, CDC, and National Toxicology Program (NTP) have all issued statements saying that there is, at present, no definite link, but that more research is needed The EPA, NTP, and International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have not classified cell phones as to their carcinogenicity
Astrocytoma brain cancer (star-shaped tumor) Acoustic neuroma benign tumor that affects the 8th cranial nerve (runs from brain to inner ear) Glioma brain cancer that forms in the glial cells (surround and support nerve cells) Meningioma slow-growing tumor that forms in the meninges (tissue surrounding brain and spinal cord) Testicular cancer Non-Hodgkins lymphoma Salivary gland tumors Pituitary tumors
Could do a daylong Mobile Fair just on this topic Slides that follow are meant to be representative, not exhaustive Other sources of info:
American Cancer Society (www.cancer.org) National Cancer Institute (www.cancer.gov) CNET (www.cnet.com) WebMD (www.webmd.com) Environmental Working Group (SAR values; http://www.ewg.org/cellphone-radiation/)
Results from 2006 Danish phone survey (N=1004) 28% worried about exposure to mobile phone radiation (82% worried about pollution) 49% say mortality risk on par with dying from a lightning strike; 7% on par with dying from smoking-induced lung cancer Overall conclusion: most arent terribly concerned, but a minority is very concerned
Case-control study 1997-2003 2159 cases with brain tumors; 2162 population-based controls Ipsilateral astrocytoma and acoustic neuroma after >10 years of use: OR = 3.3 and 3.0, respectively Highest risk among users whose first use was before age 20
Meta-analysis of 16 studies published 1999-2008 Methodological deficiencies of case-control studies: selective nonresponse and exposure misclassification No increased risk of fast-growing tumors with ~10 years of cell phone use; more time needed to decide on slow-growing Maximum risk vs. detectable risk: should be a detectable signal by now if there really is an increased risk
Tumors of interest are all rare types Insufficient exposure of users (long induction times for tumors) Effects, if any, resulting in todays tumors likely from 1G and 2G phones Accurate exposure assessment difficult if not impossible Case-control studies are subject to recall bias
Majority of authors find no definitive link Why does it seem to be Hardell vs. everyone else? Shortcomings of current study designs & research Some increases in overall brain cancer rates: better tests; earlier diagnoses; MRI/CT scans Most evidence supporting a link to cancer comes from EU-based studies where the maximum SAR is higher than the US INTERPHONE vs. International EMF Collaborative; not sure either of these has much merit
Estimation of the absorption of electromagnetic radiation from a cell phone based on age (frequency GSM 900 Mhz) (on the right, a scale showing the specific absorption rate at different depths, in W/kg) (Gandhi et al. IEEE Trans Microwave Theor Tech. 1996;44:18841897. 1996 IEEE). Figure from Han, et al., in Surgical Neurology 72 (2009) 216-222
Better methods to measure and quantify RF exposure (e.g., is a 10-minute call the same as 10, 1-minute calls?) Better models to estimate SAR away from the surface Identifying the cellular target of RF-EMR Well-designed prospective cohort studies to evaluate cancer, CNS, reproduction, interference, etc.
More research involving children By constantly developing higher-frequency devices and using them more often, are we escalating the risk faster than our bodies can adjust? Is texting the answer? Topics that havent even arisen yet (second-hand radiation, anyone?)