Cell phones & brain tumour

Cellular telephones are ubiquitous. In some places, such as Africa, their use has helped to transform communities as it has bypassed the need for a land-line phone service which would be prohibitively costly to establish in the African continent. Worldwide, the use of cell phones has mushroomed. In 1993, there were only 15 million cell phone users in North America, but by 1999 the number had swelled to more than 100 million. It is estimated that there are now 4 billion people on earth using a cell phone. Before the introduction of cell phones to the masses, there was no requirement on the manufacturers to prove that their use was not hazardous to health. Consequently, one of the most controversial health hazard questions ‘Does prolonged cell phone use cause brain tumours?’ remains unanswered. This is an even more emotive subject in the case of children as many parents now equip their 8 year old with a cell phone.

About 10 years ago, the Interphone study was established in order to settle the issue of cell phone safety. This was a 13-nation industry funded study. Although data collection was completed in 2004, the results have yet to be published and the European Parliament has demanded an explanation for the delay. Partial results of the 14 studies within the Interphone study have been published. All, except 4, studies found no increased risk for brain tumours from cell phone usage. Publication of the full study is awaited with interest.

In August 2009, the International Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Collaborative released its new report “Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern. Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone.” (http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/reasons_us.pdf)

The collaborative group includes Powerwatch and the Radiation Research Trust in the United Kingdom, The EMR Policy Institute, ElectromagneticHealth.org and The Peoples Initiative Foundation in the United States. The conclusions of the report include:-

1. Studies that are independent of the telecom industry consistently show a ‘significant’ risk for brain tumours from cell phone use.
2. The EMF exposure limits advocated by industry and used by governments are based on a false premise that a cell phone’s electromagnetic radiation has no biological effects except for heating.
3. The danger of brain tumours from cell phone use is highest in children. The younger a child is when he / she starts using a cell phone, the higher the risk.

The report was endorsed by more than 40 scientists and officials from 14 countries.

A recent Swedish study examined the risk of brain tumours in mobile phone and cordless phone users (Int J Oncol 2009; 35: 5 -17). The study involved 905 cases with malignant brain tumours, 1254 cases with benign brain tumours and 2162 population-based controls. The risk for brain tumours was highest for those who first used the phone below 20 years of age. Mobile phone users were 5.2 times more likely to develop brain tumours than controls. The risk was 4.4 times more for cordless phone users.

Do you really need to have irrefutable proof that cell phones do or do not cause brain tumours before you buy your 8 year old child a cell phone? Not everyone is comfortable waiting for the result of the definitive study on this topic. France, the United Kingdom, Finland and Israel have decided not to wait for additional data and have issued warnings about the use of cell phones and advise taking precautionary measures especially for children. In France, new legislation will ban advertising of cell phones that is directed at children under 12 years of age and the sale of cell phones designed for children younger that 6 years. Furthermore, it will also introduce new limits for radiation from phones and require cell phones to be sold with earphones.

Before the evidence is out, it is everyone’s right to decide whether they want to ‘risk it’ or not. However, should we ‘risk it’ with our children? Perhaps we, as parents, should ask “Is a cell phone a ‘must have’ or a ‘nice to have’ object? Is it something that my child cannot do without?” I do not have the answer; but to me, a degree of caution and restraint may well be in the child’s best interest.