27 replies to this topic

[dannov]

You decide:

Mobile phones 'alter human DNA'
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4113989.stm

Study finds brain tumor connection to cell phone use
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2795

[wiserd]

I've looked into this issue a bit. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that cell phones damage somatic cells. The effect seems to be on the blood brain barrier, and the brain (by that or another mechanism) which is made more permeable by cell phone radiation. Rats take longer to perform tasks when exposed to cell phone radiation, for instance.

[wiserd]

I've looked into this issue a bit. I've seen no evidence whatsoever that cell phones damage somatic cells. The effect seems to be on the blood brain barrier, and the brain (by that or another mechanism) which is made more permeable by cell phone radiation. Rats take longer to perform tasks when exposed to cell phone radiation, for instance.

I'd like to amend this. Newer research seems to opt against the blood-brain barier idea. I'm not sure of the mechanism, but EM interference with
calcium gated ion channels is one possibility.

[Proconsul]

Cell phones are certainly dangerous, but not because of the radiations (even if I can't exclude that too). First, they are a bloody irritant. Second, they consume a lot of resources only to satisfy the vanity of a bunch of superficial people, mostly teenagers who think having the latest fancy model is a question of life or death. Of course this attitude is carefully nurtured by the various companies. Granted, people would certainly spend more for a cure against aging than for a stupid cell phone. But cell phones are a safest and fastest way to earn profit and that's what is all about. Think if private firms invested on fighting aging all the economical and intellectual resources that are wasted on stupid cell phones. Instead a lot of young brilliant engineers are wasting their time trying to figure out how to insert whatever useless gadget into a silly phone, which ultimately is just a device to make and answer calls. Rather depressing...

[lightowl]

which ultimately is just a device to make and answer calls

Cell phones has enabled direct communication between almost anyone almost anywhere, including many of the poorest people in the world. Those "bloody irritant" uses are well worth living with compared to the revolution in communication those devices have enabled. Spreading information is invaluable, especially medical information but also all kinds of educational material and news from both near and far, and not least social communication like gossip and friendships that are maintained are of immense importance to society. Cell phones can be used for many other things than voice communication. In many cases they can be used as a link to the Internet.

they consume a lot of resources only to satisfy the vanity of a bunch of superficial people

That's a pretty narrow observation. Sure, there are lots of silly uses for a mobile phone, but the benefits outweigh the negative uses enormously. Besides, its all those "superficial" teenagers that pay for the development of better more advanced communication technology for everybody. Eventually those mobile phones will be de facto mobile computers with all the features and benefits that will bring with it.

[Proconsul]

which ultimately is just a device to make and answer calls

Cell phones has enabled direct communication between almost anyone almost anywhere, including many of the poorest people in the world. Those "bloody irritant" uses are well worth living with compared to the revolution in communication those devices have enabled. Spreading information is invaluable, especially medical information but also all kinds of educational material and news from both near and far, and not least social communication like gossip and friendships that are maintained are of immense importance to society. Cell phones can be used for many other things than voice communication. In many cases they can be used as a link to the Internet.

they consume a lot of resources only to satisfy the vanity of a bunch of superficial people

That's a pretty narrow observation. Sure, there are lots of silly uses for a mobile phone, but the benefits outweigh the negative uses enormously. Besides, its all those "superficial" teenagers that pay for the development of better more advanced communication technology for everybody. Eventually those mobile phones will be de facto mobile computers with all the features and benefits that will bring with it.

You miss totally my point. As communication devices cell phones are already more than satisfactory as they are now. But the industry tries to create new extravagant models all the time, and do an enormous amount of publicity to them, in order to push people, especially the vulnerable teenagers, to buy new ones all the time, even if the previous models are still perfectly functional and satisfactory. It's only a stupid fashion, but one that diverts technology and brains. If you want to create a small handheld computer, it would be much more efficient to develop it directly rather than going through the phone phase - and then perhaps give it a phone capacity as an addition. The point is that cell phones are unconsciously regarded as symbols, not just as technical devices. Why there is not so much fuss about stationary phones or laptops, for instance?

[lightowl]

As communication devices cell phones are already more than satisfactory as they are now.

I don't agree. They leave much to be desired. They are still too large and fragile for general portability. Bandwidth is too slow for many of the applications that are coming out of the computer enabled Internet. Many of those features are in demand for mobility. Power consumption and battery life is still too limited for many applications. This is only the beginning for the mobile computer / communication device. We have a long way to go yet.

It's only a stupid fashion, but one that diverts technology and brains.

For you its a stupid fashion, but for some these new mobile features are life saving. Lets just take a medical example. Rural areas in developing countries have a lack of experienced doctors because most of them are attracted to large cities for larger salaries. Teleconsulting is making it possible for people in rural areas to get qualified opinions from well educated doctors by sending them high quality images and written descriptions of their illnesses. Before the camera merged with the mobile phone, cameras where too expensive and you needed a computer to transfer the images to the phone, if the phone even supported file transfers. That almost all mobile phones today contain a camera has lowered the price of those cameras significantly. Imaging technology brings a lot of possibilities. One of those possibilities is the ability of witnesses to a crime or an accident to document that event. In the future you will see this happening a lot. In fact it will probably have a significant effect on violent street crime.

If you want to create a small handheld computer, it would be much more efficient to develop it directly rather than going through the phone phase

No it would not be more efficient. Demand is driving development of smaller and more powerful phones. As more features are demanded in phones ( features that are available on laptop computers ), phone developers are generalizing their devices. Many of the new lines of mobile phones are running Windows and Linux. The market has decided that phones should transform into computers because that was the most efficient and profitable road.

Why there is not so much fuss about stationary phones or laptops, for instance?

Stationary phones are becoming obsolete simply because they have one damning limitation. They are stationary. The only reason we still use stationary computers is because they are more powerful. In fact many are now switching to portable computers because they have overcome some of those limitations. Mobile phones are like clothes. Some use them as status symbols, others just want functionality. That is a social phenomenon and has nothing to do with phones specifically.

[lightowl]

Mobile phones are like most any other technology dangerous in criminal hands. I don't know if radio communication has a significant effect on biology. If it has, then we better find out soon because radio communication is only going to expand in the near future. It may be that high power radio transmissions have adverse effects on biology one solution might be to use more repeaters with lower power transmission. One thing I am quite certain of. We are not going to give up portability any time soon. It is simply too valuable a feature.

Edited by lightowl, 17 November 2008 - 10:43 PM.

[Proconsul]

Mobile phones are like clothes. Some use them as status symbols, others just want functionality. That is a social phenomenon and has nothing to do with phones specifically.

Cell phone market is more focused on fashion than on strict functionality. Of course every technical product is supposed to improve, but certainly one doesn't need to change a phone every year. That, especially among young people, happens not because the new model has a marked improvement in usefulness or practicality on the previous one, but just for a question of fashion and status.

[lightowl]

Cell phone market is more focused on fashion than on strict functionality.

Where do you get those numbers? If its strictly from experience, then it is just a guess. In relatively rich countries there may be more people focusing on fashion, but that is certainly not the case in poorer countries where price/performance is a big issue.

That, especially among young people, happens not because the new model has a marked improvement in usefulness or practicality on the previous one, but just for a question of fashion and status.

Since when did status and fashion become not useful? And why do you think its a problem that innovation is also driven by fashion? The important thing is that innovation is driven by market forces, because market forces is a very effective innovator. It is those who are willing to pay for something that most people find stupid that is paying for the next generation of innovation. That is what sparked the computer revolution. Computers where stupendously expensive in the early years. A few bought them for status and/or for being on the bleeding edge of technology. That enabled the many to buy the same technology a lot cheaper a few years down the road. We should be thanking the young people and risk takers and thrill seekers for their willingness to spend money to be early adopters no matter how stupid other people think it is.

BTW, innovation in computers is still driven by those who would buy the latest and greatest performing hardware. In many cases with marginal improvement but simply because they can tell their friends they have it, and they can talk about how cool it is.

Edited by lightowl, 18 November 2008 - 10:09 AM.

[lightowl]

but certainly one doesn't need to change a phone every year

That depends on who that one is. If ones social circle requires one to get a new phone or new shoes or a new car every year, then either one get a new social circle or one get the latest "what ever is required". In many cases the social circle is more important to people than the money people spend on those new things. That especially applies if one is rich and money is of little concern to one. It is not a good idea to assume everyone has the same requirements as one self. In most cases that will not be true. Just because something is not important to you does not automatically make it unimportant to everybody else.

Edited by lightowl, 18 November 2008 - 10:54 AM.

[aim1]

You decide:

Mobile phones 'alter human DNA'
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4113989.stm

Study finds brain tumor connection to cell phone use
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2795

[url="http://<a%20href="http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/portable/video/x5odhh_pop-corn-telephone-portable-microon_news"%20target="_blank">http://www.dailymoti...ews</a>"]This won't help you feel any safer![/url]

[aim1]

You decide:

Mobile phones 'alter human DNA'
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/4113989.stm

Study finds brain tumor connection to cell phone use
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2795

This won't help you feel any safer!

Sorry...try again.
http://www.dailymoti...le-microon_news

[lightowl]

Physicist Debunks Cellphone Popcorn Viral Videos
"Ringing the phones doesn't help because they're interfering with each other and receiving a signal [from a cellphone tower] -- not transmitting it,"

Why we did it...and how !
Here is the interviews of Cardo Systems' CEO on CNN....

Edited by lightowl, 18 November 2008 - 12:54 PM.

[Proconsul]

but certainly one doesn't need to change a phone every year

That depends on who that one is. If ones social circle requires one to get a new phone or new shoes or a new car every year, then either one get a new social circle or one get the latest "what ever is required". In many cases the social circle is more important to people than the money people spend on those new things. That especially applies if one is rich and money is of little concern to one. It is not a good idea to assume everyone has the same requirements as one self. In most cases that will not be true. Just because something is not important to you does not automatically make it unimportant to everybody else.

In the case of cell phones, it's evident that it's the market that artificially boosts the 'need', by increasing the social pressure on young people, so that if they don't have the coolest model, they feel almost as outcast. I know personally families in difficult economic position whose children put a lot of pressure on their parents to buy very expensive phones, only because they are in turn subjected to a very strong peer pressure. And that's not only my experience, even the media has reported this phenomenon. Btw, I believed you were a leftist? How is it you defend tooth and nail those private companies and their struggle for profit?

[lightowl]

In the case of cell phones, it's evident that it's the market that artificially boosts the 'need', by increasing the social pressure on young people, so that if they don't have the coolest model, they feel almost as outcast.

This is the case with any popular children's product. If many children didn't already think cell phones where cool they would be much less susceptible to commercial pressure. The phone companies are simply taking advantage of a social phenomenon that has less to do with cell phones and more to do with children's need to fit in with a group. If you don't like cell phones because of this, then you might need to reevaluate what is really the problem. Perhaps its just children's behavior you don't like.

The same can be said about refugees. A minority of refugees are criminals, but instead of blaming criminals for the crimes they commit, you blame refugees in general ( From another discussion ). This is just to make the point that while it is convenient to jump to conclusions about who/what is causing a perceived problem, those conclusions are often based on prejudices if not analysed in detail.

I know personally families in difficult economic position whose children put a lot of pressure on their parents to buy very expensive phones, only because they are in turn subjected to a very strong peer pressure.

Yep, that's how most children behave. If their friends have something cool they want it too. Its not unique to cell phones. Children put a lot of pressure on parents, period. It is the role of the parents to teach children how to prioritize things in life.

And that's not only my experience, even the media has reported this phenomenon.

The media is reporting anything they think will get people fired up and angry about something. Just because the media is reporting something does not mean its important.

Btw, I believed you were a leftist? How is it you defend tooth and nail those private companies and their struggle for profit?

If labeling people makes you more comfortable, then I guess its your prerogative. Fortunately many people do not fit your narrow labels. In the case of technological development market pressures work in our capitalistic world. That's just a fact. That is not a statement that concludes that anything else might not work better. If that confuses your prejudiced way of evaluating people, then you might learn something.

Edited by lightowl, 18 November 2008 - 07:11 PM.

[Mixter]

I looked around PubMed and DID find several relevant studies on cell phone usage association with DNA damage:

The mentioned study seems to have been manipulated, which made the news some months ago:

Science. 2008 Aug 29;321(5893):1144-5.Click here to read Links
Scientific misconduct. Fraud charges cast doubt on claims of DNA damage from cell phone fields.

However, there are several valid looking studies, indeed indicating a significant effect of cell radiation:

PMID 18839414
Microwaves from UMTS/GSM mobile phones induce long-lasting inhibition of 53BP1/gamma-H2AX DNA repair foci in human lymphocytes.
Belyaev IY, Markovà E, Hillert L, Malmgren LO, Persson BR.

PMID 17045516
Cell death induced by GSM 900-MHz and DCS 1800-MHz mobile telephony radiation.
Mutat Res. 2007 Jan 10;626(1-2):69-78. Epub 2006 Oct 11.

PMID 16338863
Growing concern over the safety of using mobile phones and male fertility.
Arch Androl. 2006 Jan-Feb;52(1):9-14. Review.

And here just some evidence that the radiation at least shifts redox balance toward oxidative and that antioxidants are a useful protection:

PMID 16342473
Mobile phone-induced myocardial oxidative stress: protection by a novel antioxidant agent caffeic acid phenethyl ester.
Toxicol Ind Health. 2005 Oct;21(9):223-30.

PMID 15950073
Oxidative damage in the kidney induced by 900-MHz-emitted mobile phone: protection by melatonin.
Arch Med Res. 2005 Jul-Aug;36(4):350-5.

PMID 12415560
Effects of electromagnetic radiation from a cellular telephone on the oxidant and antioxidant levels in rabbits.
Cell Biochem Funct. 2002 Dec;20(4):279-83.

[Michael]

I looked around PubMed and DID find several relevant studies on cell phone usage association with DNA damage:

The mentioned study seems to have been manipulated, which made the news some months ago:

If you look at the full text, the "Fraud" article raises some flags, but does not actually provide evidence that there was fraud or even draw the conclusion that there was such. Devra Davis' website reproduces a rebuttal to the Science "Fraud" article on cell phones:

The article errs in the first sentence "(T)he only two peer-reviewed scientific papers showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) from cell phones can cause DNA breaks are at the center of a misconduct controversy at the Medical University of Vienna (MUV)." The BioInitiative Report, Section 6 by Henry Lai, PhD – Evidence for Genotoxic Effects (RFR and ELF) reports that:

• Of 78 relevant, peer-reviewed studies on genotoxicity and RFR exposure, forty-three (43) or 55% report effects on DNA. The data available are mainly applicable to cell phone radiation exposures.

• Of 41 relevant studies of genotoxicity and ELF exposure, 27 studies (66%) report effects on DNA and 14 studies (44%) report no significant effect.

No one at this point can say whether there has been intentional or unintentional misconduct, or if the lab technician even looked at the hidden exposure codes, because the second Medical University of Vienna (MUV) 'investigative body' has not yet made its Report available to all REFLEX authors for review. The second MUV 'ethics commission' needs to finish its assessment, and if they find solid evidence of scientific fraud, the paper or papers that are directly questioned should be disregarded. However, this does not extend to the entire body of research outside of this immediate investigation.

One should be reasonably skeptical when researchers who have been primarily "funded by multiple cell phone operators and manufacturers" discredit the work that may threaten the industry that funds them. The burden of proof for those alleging scientific misconduct should fall to those making charges, and their research records and funding sources should be considered as well.

Cindy Sage
Co-Editor, BioInitiative Report

It's also worth saying that it's at least as plausible, if not more so, that cell phone use would promote rather than initiate cancer, based on the ability to slightly and locally elevate tissue temperature, in which case DNA damage (or lack of it) is largely a distraction.

I think the real problem here is that there is a lack of good data one way or the other, particularly because widespread use of cell phones is a relatively recent phenomenon gliomas have a long lead time. A level-headed case for the potential that cell phone use may promote brain cancer is put forward in the aforementioned Devra Davis' The Secret History of the War on Cancer; Davis (Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health) is in my opinion overly-cautious on some things (I think for instance that the safety of aspartame for adults is on quite solid footing), but she's not a rabid conspiracy-monger (though she does document some real industry conspiracies ) nor a mere technophobe. Her website has additional information on "The Dangers of Cell Phones," and an interview with Devra Davis on NPR provides a quick and accessible (if somewhat alarming) summary of some of the book's major themes. Among other things, she explains pretty clearly the flaws in the epidemiological studies that have seemingly supported the safety of these devices (eg, the exclusion of early business users, and the fact that most such studies only cover 5-10 years, while gliomas typically take more than 20 years to reach clinical status).

I emphasize that I am not saying firmly that cell phone use increases cancer risk -- just that there isn't enough hard information to dismiss the concern. Since using a headset is, in most circumstances, a convenience rather than a hindrance (because it leaves your hands free and avoids cramping up your neck), and since this will very likely eliminate the risk (even if using a Bluetooth), the choice for a life extensionist seems a no-brainer: get a headset, and use it whenever possible, keeping the unit itself a foot or so away from your body when convenient.

-Michael

[Mind]

Another review of the "cell phones and cancer debate"

Now that cell phones have been around for 3 decades and very popular for the last 15 I think we should be getting some clearer data. My opinion is that cell phones have a great positive impact on society and technological progress, and thus might be worth a small increase in cancer risk. If they do carry an increase in cancer risk, perhaps they can be improved and be made safer.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the average time between first exposure to a cancer-causing agent and clinical recognition of the disease is 15 to 20 years or longer—and cell phone use in the U.S. has only been popular for about a decade. (In 1996 there were 34 million U.S. cell phone users compared with more than 200 million today, according to CTIA–The Wireless Association, a Washington, D.C.–based cell phone industry group.)

Carpenter told the congressional panel that most of the studies that have shown an increased risk are from Scandinavia, where cell phones have been popular since the early 1990s. Herberman added that most of the research showing cell phones are safe is based on surveys of consumers who have used them for less than 10 years.

Despite a dearth of human studies, more than 400 experiments have been done since the early 1970s to determine how cell phone radiation affects animals, cells and DNA. They, too, have produced conflicting results. Some suggest that cell phone radiation damages DNA and/or nerve cells, others do not. At the hearing, Carpenter suggested that cell phones may increase the brain's production of reactive forms of oxygen called free radicals, which can interact with and damage DNA.

[rwac]

Increased blood–brain barrier permeability in mammalian brain 7 days after exposure to the radiation from a GSM-900 mobile phone.
http://www.sciencedi...16e1feae2c62270

Henrietta Nittbya, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Arne Brunb, Jacob Eberhardtc, Lars Malmgrend, Bertil R.R. Perssonc and Leif G. Salforda

aDepartment of Neurosurgery, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, S-22185, Lund, Sweden

bDepartment of Neuropathology, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, S-22185, Lund, Sweden

cDepartment of Medical Radiation Physics, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, S-22185, Lund, Sweden

dThe MAX Laboratory, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, S-22185, Lund, Sweden

Received 17 December 2008;
accepted 30 January 2009.
Available online 2 April 2009.

Abstract

Microwaves were for the first time produced by humans in 1886 when radio waves were broadcasted and received. Until then microwaves had only existed as a part of the cosmic background radiation since the birth of universe. By the following utilization of microwaves in telegraph communication, radars, television and above all, in the modern mobile phone technology, mankind is today exposed to microwaves at a level up to 1020 times the original background radiation since the birth of universe.

Our group has earlier shown that the electromagnetic radiation emitted by mobile phones alters the permeability of the blood–brain barrier (BBB), resulting in albumin extravasation immediately and 14 days after 2 h of exposure.

In the background section of this report, we present a thorough review of the literature on the demonstrated effects (or lack of effects) of microwave exposure upon the BBB.

Furthermore, we have continued our own studies by investigating the effects of GSM mobile phone radiation upon the blood–brain barrier permeability of rats 7 days after one occasion of 2 h of exposure. Forty-eight rats were exposed in TEM-cells for 2 h at non-thermal specific absorption rates (SARs) of 0 mW/kg, 0.12 mW/kg, 1.2 mW/kg, 12 mW/kg and 120 mW/kg. Albumin extravasation over the BBB, neuronal albumin uptake and neuronal damage were assessed.

Albumin extravasation was enhanced in the mobile phone exposed rats as compared to sham controls after this 7-day recovery period (Fisher's exact probability test, p = 0.04 and Kruskal–Wallis, p = 0.012), at the SAR-value of 12 mW/kg (Mann–Whitney, p = 0.007) and with a trend of increased albumin extravasation also at the SAR-values of 0.12 mW/kg and 120 mW/kg. There was a low, but significant correlation between the exposure level (SAR-value) and occurrence of focal albumin extravasation (rs = 0.33; p = 0.04).

The present findings are in agreement with our earlier studies where we have seen increased BBB permeability immediately and 14 days after exposure. We here discuss the present findings as well as the previous results of altered BBB permeability from our and other laboratories.

Edited by rwac, 26 September 2009 - 02:35 PM.

[tunt01]

wireless LANs also bug me too. i had one for a while and got rid of it, along with adding a headset to my mobile phone.

[rwac]

wireless LANs also bug me too. i had one for a while and got rid of it, along with adding a headset to my mobile phone.

Was it preemptive or did you actually notice something ?

[tunt01]

preemptive/slightly placebo. i just find it irritating. even when someone im sitting next to in a plane seat decides to whip out a cellphone next to my head.

i realize the emission is far less as the distance parts from the scalp, but i guess it is a pet peeve of mine.

[FNC]

wireless LANs also bug me too. i had one for a while and got rid of it, along with adding a headset to my mobile phone.

Does this apply to Wireless Internet Connections? Portable Home Phones?

Forgive me if I am not an expert in the mechanics of telecommunications.

[bobdrake12]

I don't own a cell phone, never used one, and move out of the away from people who are using them.

http://politicaltick...bid=qFOLpiare9Z

WASHINGTON (CNN) - The science is still out, but evidence so far indicates people should limit how much we use a cell phone, BlackBerry or iPhone due to a possible cancer risk, a Senate subcommittee heard Monday.

While no solid connection between mobile communications devices and human cancer has been established, studies indicating the likelihood of such a link call for a precautionary approach, medical experts testified at the hearing chaired by Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa.

Recommendations included using such devices less, keeping them away from the body, and limiting their use by children.

"Children have a configuration of their skull that does allow penetration of cell-phone radiation," noted Dr. John Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program at the National Institutes of Health.

However, Bucher stopped short of declaring a causal link between cell-phone use and human cancer.

Other witnesses before the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee noted the relatively short history of widespread cell-phone use, dating back only two decades.

Early studies are inconclusive, said Dr. Siegal Sadetzki of Tel Aviv University, but those done on subjects after 10 years of cell-phone use were showing higher incidences of tumors and other problems.

She cited a correlation between the amount of use, the side of the head where the device was held for talking, and incidences of tumors in salivary glands in that area.

"Until definite answers are available, some public health measures - especially for children - should be instituted," Sadetzki said. "It's not whether we should use cell phones, but how we should use them."

None of the participants in the hearing - including Harkin - said they were giving up their cell phones, but all agreed that restricting use and keeping the units away from the body were good ideas.

Dr. Devra Davis - a founding director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute - criticized U.S. regulators and researchers for a lack of attention to the issue. She called for updated standards based on new research, and increased funding for more extensive research.

"I am not alarmed - I am concerned, because the world has changed very rapidly and we have a right to know," Davis said.

.

Edited by bobdrake12, 28 March 2010 - 04:02 PM.

[Ghostrider]

preemptive/slightly placebo. i just find it irritating. even when someone im sitting next to in a plane seat decides to whip out a cellphone next to my head.

i realize the emission is far less as the distance parts from the scalp, but i guess it is a pet peeve of mine.

Yes, the radiation falls off with the square of distance. I imagine living near radio towers as people do here is much worse. I live about 3-4 miles line of sight from this high-powered tower:

http://www.sbe124.or...rtland/Skyline/

http://answers.googl...dview?id=464063

[maxwatt]

Epidemiology:

Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2009 Nov;212(6):576-87. Epub 2009 Sep 6.
Physicians appeals on the dangers of mobile communication--what is the evidence? Assessment of public health data.
Zur Nieden A, Dietz C, Eikmann T, Kiefer J, Herr CE.

Institute of Hygiene and Environmental Medicine, Medical Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Germany. anja.zur.nieden@hygiene.med.uni-giessen.de
In October 2002 German physicians appealed to persons in the field of health care, politicians and the public with "great concern" ("Freiburger Appell", "Appeal of Freiburg") claiming "soaring incidences of symptoms and diseases in the general population" to be causally related to the "commence of radio (wave) burden", i.e. due to mobile radio technology. This first example was followed by several further appeals published nationally and Europe-wide up until today. The aim of the present paper is an evaluation of the scientific literature and databases to check incidence and prevalence of symptoms and diseases stated in the appeals to have "dramatically increased" or to have appeared in "greater frequency" in adults. If the allegations were true a clear time-trend should show up since the start of widely-used mobile communication technology. The following health conditions were considered: Alzheimer's disease, dementia, sleep disturbances, tinnitus, cerebrovascular disease, ischemic heart-diseases, headache, migraine. Data on the incidence of these conditions were assessed from 1993 through at least 2005. For this, a systematic search by keywords was performed in the online-database of the National Library of Medicine (pubmed) and other national and international (European and US) databases. For none of the considered symptoms or diseases a "dramatic increase" was found to have occurred since 1993. Because of the different diagnoses and terms used in the studies, direct comparability is somewhat difficult. Indeed, with the data available no time related increases and surely no "dramatic increase" can be identified, even if the limited comparability is considered. This analysis strongly suggests that the allegations of the quoted appeals are not supported by public health data.

PMID: 19736044

PLoS One. 2009;4(2):e4389. Epub 2009 Feb 5.
Risks for central nervous system diseases among mobile phone subscribers: a Danish retrospective cohort study.
Schüz J, Waldemar G, Olsen JH, Johansen C.

Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, Danish Cancer Society, Copenhagen, Denmark. joachim@cancer.dk
The aim of this study was to investigate a possible link between cellular telephone use and risks for various diseases of the central nervous system (CNS). We conducted a large nationwide cohort study of 420 095 persons whose first cellular telephone subscription was between 1982 and 1995, who were followed through 2003 for hospital contacts for a diagnosis of a CNS disorder. Standardized hospitalization ratios (SHRs) were derived by dividing the number of hospital contacts in the cohort by the number expected in the Danish population. The SHRs were increased by 10-20% for migraine and vertigo. No associations were seen for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, multiple sclerosis or epilepsy in women. SHRs decreased by 30-40% were observed for dementia (Alzheimer disease, vascular and other dementia), Parkinson disease and epilepsy among men. In analyses restricted to subscribers of 10 years or more, the SHRs remained similarly increased for migraine and vertigo and similarly decreased for Alzheimer disease and other dementia and epilepsy (in men); the other SHRs were close to unity. In conclusion, the excesses of migraine and vertigo observed in this first study on cellular telephones and CNS disease deserve further attention. An interplay of a healthy cohort effect and reversed causation bias due to prodromal symptoms impedes detection of a possible association with dementia and Parkinson disease. Identification of the factors that result in a healthy cohort might be of interest for elucidation of the etiology of these diseases.

PMID: 19194493

[maxwatt]

Here is a paper that indicates cell phone use could protect against alzheimer's and possibly against PArkinson's. But then dos does smoking.

J Alzheimers Dis. 2010 Feb 17. [Epub ahead of print]
Radiofrequency Fields, Transthyretin, and Alzheimer's Disease.

Söderqvist F, Hardell L, Carlberg M, Mild KH.

Department of Oncology, University Hospital and School of Health and Medical Sciences, Orebro University, Orebro, Sweden.

Radiofrequency field (RF) exposure provided cognitive benefits in an animal study. In Alzheimer's disease (AD) mice, exposure reduced brain amyloid-beta (Abeta) deposition through decreased aggregation of Abeta and increase in soluble Abeta levels. Based on our studies on humans on RF from wireless phones, we propose that transthyretin (TTR) might explain the findings. In a cross-sectional study on 313 subjects, we used serum TTR as a marker of cerebrospinal fluid TTR. We found a statistically significantly positive beta coefficient for TTR for time since first use of mobile phones and desktop cordless phones combined (P=0.03). The electromagnetic field parameters were similar for the phone types. In a provocation study on 41 persons exposed during 30 min to an 890-MHz GSM signal with specific absorption rate of 1.0 Watt/kg to the temporal area of the brain, we found statistically significantly increased serum TTR 60 min after ending of exposure. In our cross-sectional study, use of oral snuff yielded statistically significantly increased serum TTR concentrations and nicotine has been associated with decreased risk for AD and to upregulate the TTR gene in choroid plexus but not in the liver, another source of serum TTR. TTR sequesters Abeta, thereby preventing the formation of Abeta plaques in the brain. Studies have shown that patients with AD have lowered TTR concentrations in the cerebrospinal fluid and have attributed the onset of AD to insufficient sequestering of Abeta by TTR. We propose that TTR might be involved in the findings of RF exposure benefit in AD mice.

PMID: 20164553