L. Lloyd Morgan

Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours - increased risk associated with use for > 10 years

Aim: To evaluate brain tumour risk among long-term users of cellular telephones. Methods: Two cohort studies and 16 case–control studies on this topic were identified. Data were scrutinised for use of mobile phone for ⩾10 years and ipsilateral exposure if presented. Results: The cohort study was of limited value due to methodological shortcomings in the study. Of the 16 case–control studies, 11 gave results for ⩾10 years’ use or latency period. Most of these results were based on low numbers. An association with acoustic neuroma was found in four studies in the group with at least 10 years’ use of a mobile phone. No risk was found in one study, but the tumour size was significantly larger among users. Six studies gave results for malignant brain tumours in that latency group. All gave increased odd ratios (OR), especially for ipsilateral exposure. In a meta-analysis, ipsilateral cell phone use for acoustic neuroma was OR = 2.4 (95% CI 1.1 to 5.3) and OR = 2.0, (1.2 to 3.4) for glioma using a tumour latency period of ⩾10 years. Conclusions: Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for ⩾10 years give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is highest for ipsilateral exposure.

Exposure Limits: The underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children

The existing cell phone certification process uses a plastic model of the head called the Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin (SAM), representing the top 10% of U.S. military recruits in 1989 and greatly underestimating the Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) for typical mobile phone users, especially children. A superior computer simulation certification process has been approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) but is not employed to certify cell phones. In the United States, the FCC determines maximum allowed exposures. Many countries, especially European Union members, use the “guidelines” of International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), a non governmental agency. Radiofrequency (RF) exposure to a head smaller than SAM will absorb a relatively higher SAR. Also, SAM uses a fluid having the average electrical properties of the head that cannot indicate differential absorption of specific brain tissue, nor absorption in children or smaller adults. The SAR for a 10-year old is up to 153% higher than the SAR for the SAM model. When electrical properties are considered, a childs heads absorption can be over two times greater, and absorption of the skulls bone marrow can be ten times greater than adults. Therefore, a new certification process is needed that incorporates different modes of use, head sizes, and tissue properties. Anatomically based models should be employed in revising safety standards for these ubiquitous modern devices and standards should be set by accountable, independent groups.

Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen (2A) (Review)

Quickly changing technologies and intensive uses of radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF)‑emitting phones pose a challenge to public health. Mobile phone users and uses and exposures to other wireless transmitting devices (WTDs) have increased in the past few years. We consider that CERENAT, a French national study, provides an important addition to the literature evaluating the use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumors. The CERENAT finding of increased risk of glioma is consistent with studies that evaluated use of mobile phones for a decade or longer and corroborate those that have shown a risk of meningioma from mobile phone use. In CERENAT, exposure to RF‑EMF from digitally enhanced cordless telephones (DECTs), used by over half the population of France during the period of this study, was not evaluated. If exposures to DECT phones could have been taken into account, the risks of glioma from mobile phone use in CERENAT are likely to be higher than published. We conclude that radiofrequency fields should be classified as a Group 2A ̔probable̓ human carcinogen under the criteria used by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (Lyon, France). Additional data should be gathered on exposures to mobile and cordless phones, other WTDs, mobile phone base stations and Wi‑Fi routers to evaluate their impact on public health. We advise that the as low as reasonable achievable (ALARA) principle be adopted for uses of this technology, while a major cross‑disciplinary effort is generated to train researchers in bioelectromagnetics and provide monitoring of potential health impacts of RF‑EMF.

The epidemiology of glioma in adults: a “state of the science” review

This is a wide-ranging and comprehensive study.1 However, the section “Nonionizing Radiation: Cellular Phones” has serious deficiencies. It cites 3 incidence time trend studies,2–4 2 cohort studies,5,6 and 1 case control study.7

Children Absorb Higher Doses of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Radiation From Mobile Phones Than Adults

The greater vulnerability of children to the effects of environmental hazards has raised concerns about their exposure to and the resultant absorption of mobile phone radiation. Foster and Chou (2014) reviewed published studies that used computer models of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields to estimate and compare the tissue dose rate in the heads of children and adults using mobile phones. Their review confuses exposure with absorption, and the study results conclude erroneously that children are not more exposed than adults. We show that their review was not executed systematically. There are discrepancies between text summaries and the graphed ratios of child: adult peak special specific absorption rate, in line with the authors hypothesis that children have the same or lower tissue dose than adults. Even the underlying precept of their review is flawed, as the results of deterministic models are treated as random variables. In fact, model results are entirely determined by the underlying assumptions and the structure of the model. Models are included in their unsystematic review that do not consider differences in dielectric constants among different tissues, or across ages, while other models that consider such differences are not included. In this paper, we discuss the differences between exposure and tissue absorption and re-examine the results presented by Foster and Chou. Based upon our review, we suggest an alternative interpretation of the published literature. In an Appendix, we discuss modeling of tissue dose in the context of governmental safety certification processes.

Cancer epidemiology update, following the 2011 IARC evaluation of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (Monograph 102)

ABSTRACT Epidemiology studies (case‐control, cohort, time trend and case studies) published since the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) 2011 categorization of radiofrequency radiation (RFR) from mobile phones and other wireless devices as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) are reviewed and summarized. Glioma is an important human cancer found to be associated with RFR in 9 case‐control studies conducted in Sweden and France, as well as in some other countries. Increasing glioma incidence trends have been reported in the UK and other countries. Non‐malignant endpoints linked include acoustic neuroma (vestibular Schwannoma) and meningioma. Because they allow more detailed consideration of exposure, case‐control studies can be superior to cohort studies or other methods in evaluating potential risks for brain cancer. When considered with recent animal experimental evidence, the recent epidemiological studies strengthen and support the conclusion that RFR should be categorized as carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 1). Opportunistic epidemiological studies are proposed that can be carried out through cross‐sectional analyses of high, medium, and low mobile phone users with respect to hearing, vision, memory, reaction time, and other indicators that can easily be assessed through standardized computer‐based tests. As exposure data are not uniformly available, billing records should be used whenever available to corroborate reported exposures. HighlightsIncreased risk of brain, vestibular nerve and salivary gland tumors are associated with mobile phone use.Nine studies (2011–2017) report increased risk of brain cancer from mobile phone use.Four case‐control studies (3 in 2013, 1 in 2014) report increased risk of vestibular nerve tumors.Concern for other cancers: breast (male & female), testis, leukemia, and thyroid.Based on the evidence reviewed it is our opinion that IARCs current categorization of RFR as a possible human carcinogen (Group 2B) should be upgraded to Carcinogenic to Humans (Group 1).

SAR simulations in SAM varying the dimensions, the distances and the age dependent dielectric parameters

Some SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) simulated results in SAM (Specific Anthropomorphic Mannequin) are shown and discussed in this paper. The IEEE 1528 SAM dimensions and its filling liquid dielectric parameters are changed to simulate the different age characteristics. The distance between the cell phone and the SAM is modified too. It is observed that the peak spatial SAR increases with the increase of the dielectric parameters. A suggestion that the cell phone certification process should rely on both tests (SAR measurement and SAR simulations) is presented and it is recommended that the cell phones should be approved in all tests in order to receive certification.

Author's reply to: Occupational and residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and risk of brain tumours in adults: a case-control study in Gironde, France.

Dear Editor, I found, occupational and residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and risk of brain tumours in adults: a casecontrol study in Gironde, France, an important study whose findings, as reported raise public health concerns. But I also wish to point out what may have been missed in this study. Table 1 reported the number of meningioma cases by gender (7 males and 60 females). The female to male ratio is 8.6. It is well known worldwide that there is an excess of female meningioma cases. In the United States, the age-adjusted female to male ratio of meningioma is 2.15. Although the ratio varies by age, the peak ratio is 3.15 among 30–44 year olds. This suggests that the age range of meningioma cases cannot explain the female to male ratio found in this study. Table 3 reports a significant risk of meningioma for both genders from occupational exposure to ELF (OR 1⁄4 3.02, 95% CI 1⁄4 1.10 to 8.25) and a borderline significant risk of meningioma for both genders from environmental exposure, <100 m from power lines (OR 1⁄4 2.99, 95% CI 1⁄4 0.86 to 10.40, p 1⁄4 0.079). Given the female to male meningioma case ratio, it would appear that the risk may have been entirely a female risk and that this risk would have been further elevated if risk by gender had been reported. Should this be true, the authors should publish an erratum to their study reporting the risk of meningioma by gender, and should also publish risk by gender in future planned studies. Yours sincerely, L. Lloyd Morgan