Controversies Cell Phones and Brain tumors, again
By Dr. Alan Kadish NMD
I know one can’t get too excited with another rerun of a rat study, however when was the last time you saw someone place a cell phone in her bra or a guy put the phone into their breast pocket ? Perhaps a little too close to the heart ? And can you be safe enough ?
For years now there has been the ongoing debates regarding the radiation from your cell phone and the question of “is it dangerous”. The jury is not quite in yet….but the alarmists are making waves. Theres more data to digest however, so let’s take a look at the new publications.
A quick overview of the latest study which is a re-review of the initially released information done in May of 2016, by the National Toxicology Program from the US Department of Health and Human Services, has shown “Clear Evidence” that there is a connection between radiation and heart tumors, in male rats and “some evidence” that it also caused tumors in their brains. For the female rats the results were less convincing, basically there were some heart tumors but not statistically significant, so we don’t know if it was the cell phone radiation or something else ?
In 2010 & 2011 two human studies were published. One was done based on an interviews with 2708 glioma and 2409 meningioma cases and matched controls, at 16 institutions in 13 countries and their findings; “..found that the heaviest mobile phone users were more likely to develop glioma—the same type of brain cancer the NTP (above) study found in the male rats. One of the senior toxicologist, who designed the studies concluded, “So there’s a concordance between the animal and human data,” . Not so fast….. The second study used a similar study design and found no association between acoustic neuromas, brain tumors, even with 10 years of use.
There is a glaring problem with this study design for both publications and they note as much. They asked people who had brain cancers about their exposures, after the fact, which is inherent in data error. People are terrible at recall when you ask specifics for long periods of time. Do you remember how many hours you used your phone last week and forget about last year ?
And not to confound the issue, they found only one style of brain tumors, not others, were associated with the radiation. So whats the real story ? We probably need a lot more data done in a controlled environment to really get the rest of the story. If your concerned with the radiation from your phone ….. have you checked the level of output at: Cell Phone Radiation ?
Keep the phone as far away from your body as possible
Consider a wired head set vs putting the phone to your ear
Use the handsfree mode especially if your a heavy cell phone user
Get a low SAR rated phone
Avoid giving your phone to youngsters, due their developmental considerations
We now have the first clear evidence cell phone radiation can cause cancer in rats
This week, following three days of live-broadcast peer review sessions, experts concluded that a pair of federal studies show “clear evidence” that cell phone radiation caused heart cancer in male rats.
This substantially changes the debate on whether cell phone use is a cancer risk. Up until this point, the federal government and cell phone manufacturers operated on the assumption that cell phones cannot by their very nature cause cancer, because they emit non-ionizing radiation. Whereas ionizing radiation—the kind associated with x-rays, CT scans, and nuclear power plants, among others—definitely causes cancer at high enough doses, non-ionizing radiation was believed to not emit enough energy to break chemical bonds. That meant it couldn’t damage DNA, and therefore couldn’t lead to mutations that cause cancer.
But the pair of studies by the US National Toxicology Program found “clear evidence” that exposure to radiation caused heart tumors in male rats, and found “some evidence” that it caused tumors in the brains of male rats. (Both are positive results; the NTP uses the labels “clear evidence,” “some evidence,” “equivocal evidence” and “no evidence” when making conclusions.)
Tumors were found in the hearts of female rats, too, but they didn’t rise to the level of statistical significance and the results were labeled “equivocal;” in other words, the researchers couldn’t be sure the radiation is what caused the tumors.
The next scientific step will be to determine what this means for humans. The peer-reviewed papers will be passed on to the US Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for determining human risk and issuing any guidelines to the public, and the Federal Communications Commission, which develops safety standards for cell phones. The FDA was part of the group of federal agencies who commissioned the studies back in the early 2000s.
Ronald Melnick, the NTP senior toxicologist who designed the studies (and who retired from the agency in 2009), says it’s unlikely any future study could conclude with certainty that there is no risk to humans from cell phone use. “I can’t see proof of a negative ever arising from future studies,” Melnick says.
He believes the FDA should put out guidance based on the results of the two rat studies. “I would think it would be irresponsible to not put out indications to the public,” Melnick says. “Maintain a distance from this advice from your children. Don’t sleep with your phone near your head. Use wired headsets. This would be something that the agencies could do right now.”
A RE-EVALUATION OF THE DATA
When the draft results of the papers were published earlier this year, all results were labeled “equivocal,” meaning the study authors felt the data weren’t clear enough to determine if the radiation caused the health effects or not. But the panel of peer reviewers (among them brain and heart pathologists, toxicologists, biostaticians, and engineers) re-evaluated the data and upgraded several of the conclusions to “some evidence” and “clear evidence.”
Peer review is a vital part of any scientific study; it brings several more lifetimes of expertise into the room to rigorously check a study for any weak points. Melnick calls the peer reviewers’ choice to change some conclusions an unusual move; “It’s quite uncommon that the peer review panel changes the final determination,” he says, noting if anything, he’s seen peer reviewers downgrade findings, not upgrade them. “Typically when NTP presents their findings, the peer review almost in all cases goes along with that.” In this case, the peer reviewers felt the data—when combined with their knowledge of the cancers and with the study design itself—was significant enough to upgrade several of the findings.
The peer reviewers did have some quibbles with the study; some wished it could have lasted longer (the rodents were exposed to radiation for two years) to catch later-developing tumors, for example, but others on the panel noted that the longer a rodent lives, the more likely it is to develop tumors regardless of radiation, making it harder to find the signal in the noise. Others wanted the researchers to have dissected the rodent brains more than they did, to seek hard-to-find tumors. But they noted that science is an iterative process; the study wasn’t perfect, but it’s better than anything that’s been done so far.
Overall, the peer reviewers commended the study for its rigorous design and execution. George Corcoran, the chair of the department of pharmaceutical sciences at Wayne State University who sat on the panel, says the study was of a “gold standard for design and conduct” and was “comprehensive and robust throughout.”
WHAT THE STUDIES ACTUALLY FOUND
The papers found that, in male rats, there was “clear evidence” that exposure to cell phone radiation increased risk for a rare type of malignant tumor called schwannoma in the connective tissues that surround nerves in the heart (they found “equivocal” evidence for the same thing in female rats). They also found “some evidence” that the radiation caused malignant glioma—a type of brain cancer affecting glial cells—in the male rats.
There was also “equivocal” evidence that it raised the risk of heart conditions, and led to evidence of DNA damage. Baby rats born to mothers during the trial had lower birth weights. The scientists also found a statistically significant increase in lymphoma (cancer of the lymph nodes) among female mice and heightened rates of liver cancer in the male mice. All those findings were labeled “equivocal.”
As we’ve noted before, animal studies can’t perfectly replicate human cell phone use; you can’t make a rat hold a tiny mobile phone, or put it in its pocket, for example.
But the results of these two rat studies align with those of the biggest cell phone-radiation human study to date, INTERPHONE. The INTERPHONE study, published in 2011, was a coordinated effort by researchers at 16 institutions across 13 countries, and found that the heaviest mobile phone users were more likely to develop glioma—the same type of brain cancer the NTP study found in the male rats. “So there’s a concordance between the animal and human data,” Melnick says.
In response to the INTERPHONE report, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, classified radiation from cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” in 2011. (Melnick also sat on the panel that made that determination.)
The INTERPHONE authors reported various problems with their data. The study was based in part on interviews with people who already had brain cancer, so could be subject to recall bias, creating plenty of uncertainty.
But Melnick says that when the INTERPHONE study looked at the rates of different types of brain cancer (meningioma, for example) they found no difference cell phone users. He points out that if there was recall bias, “why was it this type and not this other type of cancer?”
The FDA will make the next move in determining the risk posed to humans, and how to interpret the results for the public. “We’re taking a responsible approach,” FDA’s director of the office of science and engineering, Edward Margerrison, said on Wednesday, according to the News & Observer. “We’re not gonna knee-jerk on anything.”
Latest posts by Alan Kadish (see all)
- MicroPlastic in the water and now in the snow ! - August 18, 2019
- Organic Apples are indeed different than their conventional cousins - August 11, 2019
- Artificial Sweetener found to be dangerous - July 26, 2019