Other studies on cancer and mobile phones are:
§A Swedish scientific team at theKarolinska Instituteconducted anepidemiologicalstudy (2004) that suggested that regular use of a mobile phone over a decade or more was associated with an increased risk ofacoustic neuroma, a type of benignbraintumor. The increase was not noted in those who had used phones for fewer than 10 years.
§The INTERPHONE study group from Japan published the results of a study of brain tumour risk and mobile phone use. They used a new approach: determining the SAR inside a tumour by calculating the radio frequency field absorption in the exact tumour location. Cases examined included glioma, meninigioma, and pituitary adenoma. They reported that the overallodds ratio(OR) was not increased and that there was no significant trend towards an increasing OR in relation to exposure, as measured by SAR.
In 2007, Dr. Lennart Hardell, from Örebro University in Sweden, reviewed published epidemiological papers (2 cohort studies and 16 case-control studies) and found that:
§Cell phone users had an increased risk of malignant gliomas.
§Link between cell phone use and a higher rate of acoustic neuromas.
§Tumors are more likely to occur on the side of the head that the cell handset is used.
§One hour of cell phone use per day significantly increases tumor risk after ten years or more.
In a February 2008 update on the status of the INTERPHONE study IARC stated that the long term findings ‘…could either be causal or artifactual, related to differential recall between cases and controls.
A self-published and non-peer reviewed meta-study by Dr. Vini Khurana, anAustralianneurosurgeon, presented what it termed "increasing body of evidence ... for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours" and that it "is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking".This was criticised as ‘…an unbalanced analysis of the literature, which is also selective in support of the author’s claims.’
A publication titled "Public health implications of wireless technologies" cites that Lennart Hardell found age is a significant factor. The report repeated the finding that the use of cell phones before age 20 increased the risk of brain tumors by 5.2, compared to 1.4 for all ages. A review by Hardell et al. concluded that current mobile phones are not safe for long-term exposure.
In a time trends study in Europe, conducted by the Institute of Cancer Epidemiology in Copenhagen, no significant increase in brain tumors among cell phone users was found between the years of 1998 and 2003. "The lack of a trend change in incidence from 1998 to 2003 suggests that theinductionperiod relating mobile phone use to brain tumors exceeds 5–10 years, the increased risk in this population is too small to be observed, the increased risk is restricted to subgroups of brain tumors or mobile phone users, or there is no increased risk."
Cognitive effects
A 2009 study examined the effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitted by standard GSM cell phones on the cognitive functions of humans. The study confirmed longer (slower) response times to a spatial working memory task when exposed to RFR from a standard GSM cellular phone placed next to the head of male subjects, and showed that longer duration of exposure to RFR may increase the effects on performance. Right-handed subjects exposed to RFR on the left side of their head on average had significantly longer response times when compared to exposure to the right side and sham-exposure.
Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Main article:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Some users of mobile handsets have reported feeling several unspecificsymptomsduring and after its use; ranging from burning andtingling sensationsin the skin of the head and extremities,fatigue, sleep disturbances,dizziness, loss of mentalattention,reaction timesandmemoryretentiveness,headaches,malaise,tachycardia(heartpalpitations), to disturbances of thedigestive system. Reports have noted that all of these symptoms can also be attributed tostressand that current research cannot separate the symptoms fromnoceboeffects.[35]
Genotoxic effects
A large early 2009 meta-study of 101 scientific publications on genotoxicity of RF electromagnetic fields shows that 49 report a genotoxic effect and 42 do not. Research published in 2004 by a team at theUniversity of Athenshad a reduction in reproductive capacity infruit fliesexposed to 6 minutes of 900 MHz pulsed radiation for five days.Subsequent research, again conducted on fruit flies, was published in 2007, with the same exposure pattern but conducted at both 900 MHz and 1800 MHz, and had similar changes in reproductive capacity with no significant difference between the two frequencies.Following additional tests published in a third article, the authors stated they thought their research suggested the changes were “…due to degeneration of large numbers of egg chambers after DNA fragmentation of their constituent cells …”.Australian research conducted in 2009 by subjectingin vitrosamples of humanspermatozoato radio-frequency radiation at 1.8 GHz andspecific absorption rates(SAR) of 0.4 to 27.5 W/kg showed a correlation between increasing SAR and decreasedmotilityandvitalityin sperm, increasedoxidative stressand8-Oxo-2'-deoxyguanosinemarkers, stimulatingDNAbase adduct formation and increasedDNA fragmentation.
In 1995, in the journalBioelectromagnetics, Henry Lai and Narenda P. Singh reported damaged DNA after two hours of microwave radiation at levels deemed safe according to government standards.Later, in December 2004, a pan-Europeanstudy named REFLEX (Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Energy Electromagnetic Field (EMF) Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods), involving 12 collaborating laboratories in several countries showed some compelling evidence of DNA damage of cells in in-vitro cultures, when exposed between 0.3 to 2 watts/kg, whole-sample average. There were indications, but not rigorous evidence of other cell changes, including damage tochromosomes, alterations in the activity of certaingenesand a boosted rate ofcell division. Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiences.
Sleep and EEG effects
Sleep,EEGand wakingrCBFhave been studied in relation to RF exposure for a decade now, and the majority of papers published to date have found some form of effect. While a Finnish study failed to find any effect on sleep or other cognitive function from pulsed RF exposure,most other papers have found significant effects on sleep.Two of these papers found the effect was only present when the exposure was pulsed (amplitude modulated), and one early paper actually found that sleep quality (measured by the amount of participants' broken sleep) actually improved.
While some papers were inconclusive or inconsistent,a number of studies have now demonstrated reversible EEG and rCBF alterations from exposure to pulsed RF exposureGerman research from 2006 found that statistically significant EEG changes could be consistently found, but only in a relatively low proportion of study participants (12 - 30%).
Health hazards of base stations
