Power Lines And Cancer

From time to time we have had discussions on power lines and EMF in general causing cancer. Some even reporting having grounding pads on their beds to deflect EMF.

There is new data out as late as 2013 confirming that past studies linking EMF and cancer have been skewed or not scientifically done while those studies by true scientific organizations, like the World Health Organization, have confirmed that there is no relationship between EMF and increased cancer incidence:

[www.forbes.com]

Gordon

AFAIK the honest basic science on this subject was done by Olle Johannson; a small part of his finding is here:[www.cellphonetaskforce.org]

IIRC all man-made electro-magnetic pulsed radiation is harmful.

Over 3 years ago, the post titled Electropollution: Cardiovascular Risk
[www.afibbers.org] along with Part 2 on that topic was the result of several webinar interviews with Oram Miller, Oram Miller, BBEC, Certified Building BiologyTM Environmental Consultant "EMF" Consultant. The posts mentioned several points about the obfuscations regarding the actual danger and harm from various types of EMFs. Since that time, Oram has continued to expand his website with an abundance of timely and well done informative reports on what the world faces in terms of Electropollution and the detrimental effects on health.

Here’s a recent topic list from his home page (link follows)… go there and click on the hyperlinks to follow the reports. Especially graphic is that titled “If cell phone radiation were visible, here’s what the world would look like.”

Welcome to Create Healthy Homes
Oram Miller, BBEC, Certified Building BiologyTM Environmental Consultant
Healthy New Building and Remodeling
Serving Clients with On-Site Existing and New Home and Office EMF Evaluations in
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Diego Counties and Nationwide by Telephone, based upon the principles of Building BiologyTM

Recent EMF News:
New: To view a new 6 1/2 minute YouTube video by Oram on the signs of EMF sensitivity and a general introduction to EMFs, go to my Articles on EMFs page and scroll down to the YouTube link.

New: Who says our governmental regulatory agencies are unbiased? Who do you think got to the CDC when they recommended caution on cell phone use and then retracted their statements one week later?

New: "French Senate passes bill to add precautions to wireless networks and mobile phones," including turning off wireless networks in primary schools when not in use.

New: A court in Brazil orders a reduction in the safe exposure level for magnetic fields to the level adopted by Switzerland. (The US has no safe magnetic levels whatsoever.)

Note: I have added several new pages to this website, covering topics that come up in my daily work as an EMF consultant. They include, Healthy Lighting Choices, EMFs in Cars, Car Rooftop Cell Phone Antennas, and substantially updated information on the Safer Use of Computers page. This includes new information on how to connect an iPad to the Internet while in Airplane mode (therefore no radio frequencies) using a series of adapters and USB and Ethernet cables.

Note: Oram was a guest on several radio shows during the spring and early summer months of 2014, including: Evan Brand's Weekly Podcast, Not Just Paleo; Dr. Rima Laibow and Ralph Fucetola's show, Dr. Rima Health Reports on Revolution Radio; The Morning Show with Patrick Timpone on One Radio Network; and Carole Dean's Weekly Podcast, The Art of Film Funding. You can access archives of all of these shows by following the links just given or by going to my page, Oram on the Radio.

Note: "Li-Fi" is here. A Russian company, Stins Coman, has developed a wireless Internet networking system using visible light. Called BeamCaster, it is four times faster than Wi-Fi, more stable, and cannot be hacked. And of course, there are no radio waves. This is already in use in offices in the US, Israel, China and other countries and will soon be on the market for under $100.

Note: Watch a trailer for a new documentary in the making, Generation Zapped, featuring comments by yours truly and other EMF experts. Help the filmmakers, Sabine El Gemayel and Carolyn Chen, with fundraising. An Indiegogo campaign is about to be launched. LIKE the filmmakers on Facebook from their website.

Note: Oram speaks at LA DWP smart meter meeting. Watch brief comments by Oram at a neighborhood smart meter meeting, held May 8, 2013, at which Cindy Sage, of Sage Consulting, spoke.

Note: If Cell Phone Radiation Were Visible, The World Would Look Like This

Note: RF/microwave exposure - more evidence that it is a universal bio-hazard

Note: New regulation for the sale of mobile phones as of 2014; The Belgian government will indeed restrict the use of mobile phones by young children and the specific absorption rate (SAR) has to be listed for every mobile phone at the point of sale.

Note: Oram spoke at the Cancer Control Society on August 31, 2013. To view a video of the lecture and to see the power point slides prepared for that lecture, click here.

Note: Andre Fauteux's list of countries that recognize electro hypersensitivity (EHS).

Note: Also, see a list of governments and organizations that ban or warn against wireless technology.

Note: German ministry rejects smart meters. UK delays all Smart meter installations by a year. Italy bans them entirely. No major media coverage in the US.

Note: The updated BioInitiative 2012 Report, released in January 2013, includes a review of 1,800 new studies showing the harm of short- and long-term exposure to wireless devices since their first report in 2007.

Note: The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) issued sweeping reforms in May 2011 to reduce exposure by European citizens to cell phones and other EMFs in an effort to protect their health and reduce burgeoning health care costs to member country's national health plans. Likewise, the World Health Organization issued a new stance that cell phones are "possibly" carcinogenic."
Source: [www.createhealthyhomes.com]

At the time the original Electropollution post was published for afibbers, much of the focus was on exposure risks in the home, office, schools, cell phones, car antennas from WiFi and cell towers, antennas and powerlines. I don’t recall if I included it, but during the interview, Oram commented that in various parts of Europe there were already restrictions on residing in homes or building X distance… (miles, I believe), from power lines due to the adverse health effects. At the time, the comments were that the US media was apparently gagged from presenting the truth or even talking about the truth that is known outside of the U. S. as is so typical.

Cardiologist, Stephen Sinatra continues to bring the facts to the public about risks of electropollution in children from school exposures. When his son nearly died from the cumulative EMF effects in the workplace, Dr. Sinatra began his crusade to enlighten the public on the health risks.

If cell phone towers and WiFi are causing significant concern over adverse health effects, then power line exposure is certainly not exempt either.

Electromagnetic radiation has been linked to undisputable biological and health effects including risk of cancer, Parkinson’s, autism, Alzheimer and ADHD. The World Health Organization classifies radio frequencies as class 2B carcinogen, same as DDT and lead in its press release of May 2011. [www.iarc.fr]

Everyone needs to be aware of the potential risks and be smart about exposure.

Jackie

This is paranoia. Go ahead and file suit against the phone company and the power company- you won't win but if it helps your irrational fear then that's good.

Honestly, there are plenty of legitimate concerns in this world, but if you are afraid of your cell phone, God help you.

There is a 2009, 44-page report… titled

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern

Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone

That everyone who thinks that cell phones are harmless should read.

___________________________________________________________________________________
Introduction
Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern has been prepared to enable balanced reporting on this important subject. It provides information on scientific findings from studies
on the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use.

It includes studies independent of industry funding as well as telecommunications industry funded studies
Further, it includes background information on the soon to be published Telecom- funded Interphone study.

In particular, the report’s purpose is to inform journalists and government officials of the
independent scientific findings that raise red flags, and also to address the design flaws in the
Interphone study protocol that results in an underestimation of the risk of brain tumors from
cellphone use. This report is fully referenced to enable further investigations and for detailed
fact checking.

We urge all readers to review the results from independent Studies on the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use discussed in this report, and to become familiar with the Interphone study’s design flaws (see Appendix 1, A Description of Interphone Study’s Design Flaws ).

We also urge readers to learn about the Precautionary Principle actions ( see inside front cover)
that can be implemented by governments and by individuals to greatly reduce cellphone radiation exposure (see Appendix 2,

The Precautionary Principle Applied to Cellphone Use .

Major Points
• Studies, independent of industry , consistently show there is a “significant” 1 risk of brain tumors from cellphone use.

• The electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure limits advocated by industry and used by governments are based on a false premise that a cellphone’s electromagnetic radiation has no biological effects except for heating.
1

Significant as used throughout this document, is a shorthand term – of - art for “statistically significant” which
means there is a 95% or greater probability that the finding is not due to a chance finding. Conversely, “non- significant” is shorthand for “statistically non - significant” meaning that there is less than a 95% confidence that the finding is due to chance. Also see the footnote in Concern 2.

Cellphone and Brain Tumors - 15 Reasons for Concern
___________________________________________________________________________________

There are thousands of studies showing biological effects from electromagnetic radiation at exposure levels far below where heating occurs (non - thermal effects).

The BioInitiative Report provides extensive documentation of studies that show that there are non - thermal effects. We urge readers to review this report. It can be found online at
www.bioinitiative.org
.
• The names of the persons responsible for these Interphone study design flaws have
not been made public so they could be questioned about why these design choices
were made.

In no profession, and in particular for a public health matter, are the responsible people
not held accountable for the product of their work.

• In aggregate, the Interphone study’s design flaws substantially reduce the reported
risk of brain tumors from cellphone use.

These flaws are discussed in detail in Appendix 1. The flaws that result in an
underestimation of the risk of brain tumors include:

o selection bias

o treating study subjects who used a cordless phone as “unexposed” to microwave radiation

o insufficient latency time to expect a tumor diagnosis

o unrealistic definition of a “regular” cellphone user

o exclusion of children and young adults from the study

o exclusion of many types of brain tumors, and exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed, as a
consequence of their brain tumor

In the interest of truth in science, and fair reporting, this document has been prepared to provide
journalists and government officials access to additional information, independent of industry, in order
to enable a better understanding and balanced reporting of all sides of this important topic.

Continue:
[www.radiationresearch.org]

Poppycock. Perhaps you should market little aluminum beanies...

The irony is that most of the people reading this thread do so on a smartphone or a computer fed by a wireless network. Oh the Humanity...

Not the most convincing of refutations, Tom.

Tom – take a few minutes to scan down the extensive list of links and reports from one of the leaders in the field on the health risks of Electromagnetic Frequency exposure (EMFs), Oram Miller, BBEC

Start with this short trailer of a new documentary on the dangers of EMFs titled

Generation Zapped.
[generationzapped.com]

It will take a lot of time reading all Oram Miller has to offer at his website, but the information is invaluable.

Note this one on the research citations on the Health Hazards
of Cell Phones, Cordless Telephones and Wireless Internet (Wi-Fi)

To support our position that exposure to Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMFs) is harmful and that currently accepted safe levels of exposure are too high, click on "Cell Phone and Radio Frequency Risks." That page links to websites with current research on biologically-based, non-thermal adverse health effects from long-term exposure to wireless communication devices from information-carrying radio frequencies from cell phones, cordless telephones, laptops, tablets, and wireless internet routers (Wi-Fi).
[www.createhealthyhomes.com]

If you missed the posts on EMFs and cardiovascular risk including arrhythmias…
Read the following links:

Electropollution and Cardiovascular Risk – parts 1 and 2
Hans has directed us to the General Health Forum on the topic of cell phones and the brain cancer connection. Good timing because I was just completing my notes on the impact of Electropollution and cardiac risk.
[www.afibbers.org]

ELECTROPOLLUTION (TOXIC FREQUENCIES)-- HEALTH RISKS IDENTIFIED
[www.afibbers.org]

Electropollution (Toxic Frequencies).. continued
[www.afibbers.org]

Cell phones implicated in brain cancer
[www.afibbers.org]


Jackie

Sam,

Here is information from the National Cancer Institute:


Key Points
Cell phones emit radiofrequency energy, a form of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation, which can be absorbed by tissues closest to where the phone is held.
The amount of radiofrequency energy a cell phone user is exposed to depends on the technology of the phone, the distance between the phone’s antenna and the user, the extent and type of use, and the user’s distance from cell phone towers.
Studies thus far have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancers of the brain, nerves, or other tissues of the head or neck. More research is needed because cell phone technology and how people use cell phones have been changing rapidly.
Why is there concern that cell phones may cause cancer or other health problems?


There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cell phones (also known as “wireless” or “mobile” telephones) might have the potential to cause certain types of cancer or other health problems:

Cell phones emit radiofrequency energy (radio waves), a form of non-ionizing radiation. Tissues nearest to where the phone is held can absorb this energy.
The number of cell phone users has increased rapidly. As of 2010, there were more than 303 million subscribers to cell phone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is a nearly threefold increase from the 110 million users in 2000. Globally, the number of cell phone subscriptions is estimated by the International Telecommunications Union to be 5 billion.
Over time, the number of cell phone calls per day, the length of each call, and the amount of time people use cell phones have increased. Cell phone technology has also undergone substantial changes.
What is radiofrequency energy and how does it affect the body?


Radiofrequency energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation can be categorized into two types: ionizing (e.g., x-rays, radon, and cosmic rays) and non-ionizing (e.g., radiofrequency and extremely low-frequency or power frequency).

Exposure to ionizing radiation, such as from radiation therapy, is known to increase the risk of cancer. However, although many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk (1).

The only known biological effect of radiofrequency energy is heating. The ability of microwave ovens to heat food is one example of this effect of radiofrequency energy. Radiofrequency exposure from cell phone use does cause heating; however, it is not sufficient to measurably increase body temperature.

A recent study showed that when people used a cell phone for 50 minutes, brain tissues on the same side of the head as the phone’s antenna metabolized more glucose than did tissues on the opposite side of the brain (2). The researchers noted that the results are preliminary, and possible health outcomes from this increase in glucose metabolism are still unknown.

How is radiofrequency energy exposure measured in epidemiologic studies?


Levels of radiofrequency exposure are indirectly estimated using information from interviews or questionnaires. These measures include the following:

How “regularly” study participants use cell phones (the minimum number of calls per week or month)
The age and the year when study participants first used a cell phone and the age and the year of last use (allows calculation of the duration of use and time since the start of use)
The average number of cell phone calls per day, week, or month (frequency)
The average length of a typical cell phone call
The total hours of lifetime use, calculated from the length of typical call times, the frequency of use, and the duration of use
What has research shown about the possible cancer-causing effects of radiofrequency energy?


Although there have been some concerns that radiofrequency energy from cell phones held closely to the head may affect the brain and other tissues, to date there is no evidence from studies of cells, animals, or humans that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer.

It is generally accepted that damage to DNA is necessary for cancer to develop. However, radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage in cells, and it has not been found to cause cancer in animals or to enhance the cancer-causing effects of known chemical carcinogens in animals (3–5).

Researchers have carried out several types of epidemiologic studies to investigate the possibility of a relationship between cell phone use and the risk of malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas, as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors in the cells of the nerve responsible for hearing), most meningiomas (tumors in the meninges, membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord), and parotid gland tumors (tumors in the salivary glands) (6).

In one type of study, called a case-control study, cell phone use is compared between people with these types of tumors and people without them. In another type of study, called a cohort study, a large group of people is followed over time and the rate of these tumors in people who did and didn’t use cell phones is compared. Cancer incidence data can also be analyzed over time to see if the rates of cancer changed in large populations during the time that cell phone use increased dramatically. The results of these studies have generally not provided clear evidence of a relationship between cell phone use and cancer, but there have been some statistically significant findings in certain subgroups of people.

Findings from specific research studies are summarized below:

The Interphone Study, conducted by a consortium of researchers from 13 countries, is the largest health-related case-control study of use of cell phones and head and neck tumors. Most published analyses from this study have shown no statistically significant increases in brain or central nervous system cancers related to higher amounts of cell phone use. One recent analysis showed a statistically significant, albeit modest, increase in the risk of glioma among the small proportion of study participants who spent the most total time on cell phone calls. However, the researchers considered this finding inconclusive because they felt that the amount of use reported by some respondents was unlikely and because the participants who reported lower levels of use appeared to have a slightly reduced risk of brain cancer compared with people who did not use cell phones regularly (7–9). Another recent study from the group found no relationship between brain tumor locations and regions of the brain that were exposed to the highest level of radiofrequency energy from cell phones (10).
A cohort study in Denmark linked billing information from more than 358,000 cell phone subscribers with brain tumor incidence data from the Danish Cancer Registry. The analyses found no association between cell phone use and the incidence of glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among people who had been cell phone subscribers for 13 or more years (11–13).
The prospective Million Women Study in the United Kingdom found that self-reported cell phone use was not associated with an increased risk of glioma, meningioma, or non-central nervous system tumors. The researchers did find that the use of cell phones for more than 5 years was associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma, and that the risk of acoustic neuroma increased with increasing duration of cell phone use (14). However, the incidence of these tumors among men and women in the United Kingdom did not increase during 1998 to 2008, even though cell phone use increased dramatically over that decade (14).
An early case-control study in the United States was unable to demonstrate a relationship between cell phone use and glioma or meningioma (15).
Some case-control studies in Sweden found statistically significant trends of increasing brain cancer risk for the total amount of cell phone use and the years of use among people who began using cell phones before age 20 (16). However, another large, case-control study in Sweden did not find an increased risk of brain cancer among people between the ages of 20 and 69 (17). In addition, the international CEFALO study, which compared children who were diagnosed with brain cancer between ages 7 and 19 with similar children who were not, found no relationship between their cell phone use and risk for brain cancer (18).
NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, which tracks cancer incidence in the United States over time, found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1987 and 2007, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time (19, 20). Similarly, incidence data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden for the period 1974–2008 revealed no increase in age-adjusted incidence of brain tumors (21, 22). A 2012 study by NCI researchers, which compared observed glioma incidence rates in SEER with projected rates based on risks observed in the Interphone study (8), found that the projected rates were consistent with observed U.S. rates. The researchers also compared the SEER rates with projected rates based on a Swedish study published in 2011 (16). They determined that the projected rates were at least 40 percent higher than, and incompatible with, the actual U.S. rates.
Studies of workers exposed to radiofrequency energy have shown no evidence of increased risk of brain tumors among U.S. Navy electronics technicians, aviation technicians, or fire control technicians, those working in an electromagnetic pulse test program, plastic-ware workers, cellular phone manufacturing workers, or Navy personnel with a high probability of exposure to radar (6).
Why are the findings from different studies of cell phone use and cancer risk inconsistent?


A limited number of studies have shown some evidence of statistical association of cell phone use and brain tumor risks, but most studies have found no association. Reasons for these discrepancies include the following:

Recall bias, which may happen when a study collects data about prior habits and exposures using questionnaires administered after disease has been diagnosed in some of the study participants. It is possible that study participants who have brain tumors may remember their cell phone use differently than individuals without brain tumors. Many epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about the total amount of cell phone use over time. In addition, people who develop a brain tumor may have a tendency to recall using their cell phone mostly on the same side of their head where the tumor was found, regardless of whether they actually used their phone on that side of their head a lot or only a little.
Inaccurate reporting, which may happen when people say that something has happened more or less often than it actually did. People may not remember how much they used cell phones in a given time period.
Morbidity and mortality among study participants who have brain cancer. Gliomas are particularly difficult to study, for example, because of their high death rate and the short survival of people who develop these tumors. Patients who survive initial treatment are often impaired, which may affect their responses to questions. Furthermore, for people who have died, next-of-kin are often less familiar with the cell phone use patterns of their deceased family member and may not accurately describe their patterns of use to an interviewer.
Participation bias, which can happen when people who are diagnosed with brain tumors are more likely than healthy people (known as controls) to enroll in a research study. Also, controls who did not or rarely used cell phones were less likely to participate in the Interphone study than controls who used cell phones regularly. For example, the Interphone study reported participation rates of 78 percent for meningioma patients (range 56–92 percent for the individual studies), 64 percent for the glioma patients (range 36–92 percent), and 53 percent for control subjects (range 42–74 percent) (9). One series of Swedish studies reported participation rates of 85 percent in people with brain cancer and 84 percent in control subjects (17).
Changing technology and methods of use. Older studies evaluated radiofrequency energy exposure from analog cell phones. However, most cell phones today use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones. Digital cell phones have been in use for more than a decade in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (6). Texting, for example, has become a popular way of using a cell phone to communicate that does not require bringing the phone close to the head. Furthermore, the use of hands-free technology, such as wired and wireless headsets, is increasing and may decrease radiofrequency energy exposure to the head and brain.
What do expert organizations conclude?


The International Agency for Research on Cancer Exit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, has recently classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and weak mechanistic evidence (from studies of genotoxicity, effects on immune system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, along with studies of the possible effects of radiofrequency energy on the blood-brain barrier).

The American Cancer Society Exit Disclaimer (ACS) states that the IARC classification means that there could be some risk associated with cancer, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for regulating the safety of machines and devices that emit radiation (including cell phones), notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones and health problems.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that, although some studies have raised concerns about the possible risks of cell phone use, scientific research as a whole does not support a statistically significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that there is no scientific evidence that proves that wireless phone use can lead to cancer or to other health problems, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss.

What studies are under way that will help further our understanding of the health effects of cell phone use?


A large prospective cohort study of cell phone use and its possible long-term health effects was launched in Europe in March 2010. This study, known as COSMOS Exit Disclaimer, has enrolled approximately 290,000 cell phone users aged 18 years or older to date and will follow them for 20 to 30 years.

Participants in COSMOS will complete a questionnaire about their health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use. This information will be supplemented with information from health records and cell phone records.

The challenge of this ambitious study is to continue following the participants for a range of health effects over many decades. Researchers will need to determine whether participants who leave are somehow different from those who remain throughout the follow-up period.

Another study already under way is a case-control study called Mobi-Kids Exit Disclaimer, which will include 2000 young people (aged 10-24 years) with newly diagnosed brain tumors and 4000 healthy young people. The goal of the study is to learn more about risk factors for childhood brain tumors. Results are expected in 2016.

Although recall bias is minimized in studies that link participants to their cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the listed cell phone or whether that individual also places calls using other cell phones. To a lesser extent, it is not clear whether multiple users of a single phone will be represented on a single phone company account.

The NIEHS, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, is carrying out a study of risks related to exposure to radiofrequency energy (the type used in cell phones) in highly specialized labs that can specify and control sources of radiation and measure their effects on rodents.

Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cell phone use than adults?


In theory, children have the potential to be at greater risk than adults for developing brain cancer from cell phones. Their nervous systems are still developing and therefore more vulnerable to factors that may cause cancer. Their heads are smaller than those of adults and therefore have a greater proportional exposure to the field of radiofrequency radiation that is emitted by cell phones. And children have the potential of accumulating more years of cell phone exposure than adults do.

So far, the data from studies in children with cancer do not support this theory. The first published analysis came from a large case-control study called CEFALO, which was conducted in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland. The study included children who were diagnosed with brain tumors between 2004 and 2008, when their ages ranged from 7 to 19. Researchers did not find an association between cell phone use and brain tumor risk in this group of children. However, they noted that their results did not rule out the possibility of a slight increase in brain cancer risk among children who use cell phones, and that data gathered through prospective studies and objective measurements, rather than participant surveys and recollections, will be key in clarifying whether there is an increased risk (19).

Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting another international study—Mobi-Kids Exit Disclaimer—to evaluate the risk associated with new communications technologies (including cell phones) and other environmental factors in young people newly diagnosed with brain tumors at ages 10 to 24 years.

What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency energy?


The FDA and FCC have suggested some steps that concerned cell phone users can take to reduce their exposure to radiofrequency energy (1, 23):

Reserve the use of cell phones for shorter conversations or for times when a landline phone is not available.
Use a hands-free device, which places more distance between the phone and the head of the user.
Hands-free kits reduce the amount of radiofrequency energy exposure to the head because the antenna, which is the source of energy, is not placed against the head.

Where can I find more information about radiofrequency energy from my cell phone?


The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds with the relative amount of radiofrequency energy absorbed by the head of a cell phone user (24). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form.

What are other sources of radiofrequency energy?


The most common exposures to radiofrequency energy are from telecommunications devices and equipment (1). In the United States, cell phones currently operate in a frequency range of about 1,800 to 2,200 megahertz (MHz) (6). In this range, the electromagnetic radiation produced is in the form of non-ionizing radiofrequency energy.

Cordless phones (phones that have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house) often operate at radio frequencies similar to those of cell phones; however, since cordless phones have a limited range and require a nearby base, their signals are generally much less powerful than those of cell phones.

Among other radiofrequency energy sources, AM/FM radios and VHF/UHF televisions operate at lower radio frequencies than cell phones, whereas sources such as radar, satellite stations, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices, industrial equipment, and microwave ovens operate at somewhat higher radio frequencies (1).

How common is brain cancer? Has the incidence of brain cancer changed over time?


Brain cancer incidence and mortality (death) rates have changed little in the past decade. In the United States, 23,130 new diagnoses and 14,080 deaths from brain cancer are estimated for 2013.

The 5-year relative survival for brain cancers diagnosed from 2003 through 2009 was 35 percent (25). This is the percentage of people diagnosed with brain cancer who will still be alive 5 years after diagnosis compared with the survival of a person of the same age and sex who does not have cancer.

The risk of developing brain cancer increases with age. From 2006 through 2010, there were fewer than 5 brain cancer cases for every 100,000 people in the United States under age 65, compared with approximately 19 cases for every 100,000 people in the United States who were ages 65 or older (25).

Sam,

Another study from the National Cancer Institute: [www.cancer.gov]

Magnetic Field Exposure and Cancer

Key Points
Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are a form of non-ionizing radiation. EMFs are invisible areas of energy produced by the movement of electrons. Extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs are produced by power lines, wiring, and electrical appliances.
Several early epidemiologic studies raised the possibility of an association between certain cancers, especially childhood cancers, and ELF-EMFs. Most subsequent studies have not shown such an association, but scientists continue to investigate the possibility that one exists.
Studies of animals exposed to ELF-EMFs have not provided any indications that ELF-EMF exposure is associated with cancer, and no mechanism has been identified by which such fields could cause cancer.
What are electric and magnetic fields?


Electric and magnetic fields are invisible areas of energy that are produced by electricity, which is the movement of electrons, or current, through a wire.

An electric field is produced by voltage, which is the pressure used to push the electrons through the wire, much like water being pushed through a pipe. As the voltage increases, the electric field increases in strength.

A magnetic field results from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices and increases in strength as the current increases. The strength of a magnetic field decreases rapidly with increased distance from its source.

Electric fields are produced whether or not a device is turned on, but magnetic fields are produced only when current is flowing, which usually requires a device to be turned on. Power lines produce magnetic fields continuously because current is always flowing through them.

Electric and magnetic fields together are referred to as electromagnetic fields, or EMFs. There are both natural and human-made sources of EMFs. The earth’s magnetic field, which causes a compass to point North, is an example of a naturally occurring EMF. Power lines, wiring, and electrical appliances, such as electric shavers, hair dryers, computers, televisions, and electric blankets produce what are called extremely low frequency (ELF) EMFs. ELF-EMFs have frequencies of up to 300 cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz); for example, the frequency of alternating current in power lines is 50 or 60 Hz. Cell phones produce radiofrequency EMFs above the ELF range. For more information about cell phones, see the NCI Fact Sheet Cell Phones and Cancer Risk.

Electric fields are easily shielded or weakened by walls and other objects, whereas magnetic fields can pass through buildings, living things, and most other materials. Consequently, magnetic fields are the component of ELF-EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.

Why are ELF-EMFs studied in relation to cancer?

Any possible health effects of ELF-EMFs would be of concern because power lines and electrical appliances are present everywhere in modern life, and people are constantly encountering these fields, both in their homes and in certain workplaces. Also, the presence of ELF-EMFs in homes means that children are exposed. Even if ELF-EMFs were to increase an individual’s risk of disease only slightly, widespread exposure to ELF-EMFs could translate to meaningful increased risks at the population level.

Several early epidemiologic studies raised the possibility of an association between certain cancers, especially childhood cancers, and ELF-EMFs. Most subsequent studies have not shown such an association, but scientists have continued to investigate the possibility that one exists.

No mechanism by which ELF-EMFs could cause cancer has been identified. Unlike high-energy (ionizing) radiation, ELF-EMFs are low energy and non-ionizing and cannot damage DNA or cells directly. Some scientists have speculated that ELF-EMFs could cause cancer through other mechanisms, such as by reducing levels of the hormone melatonin. (There is some evidence that melatonin may suppress the development of certain tumors.) However, studies of animals exposed to ELF-EMFs have not provided any indications that ELF-EMF exposure is associated with cancer (1, 2).

What is the evidence for an association between magnetic field exposure and cancer in children?


Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to ELF magnetic fields and risk of cancer in children (1, 3, 4). Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. Studies have examined associations of these cancers with living near power lines, with magnetic fields in the home, and with exposure of parents to high levels of magnetic fields in the workplace.

Exposure from power lines

Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia (5), more recent studies have had mixed findings. Currently, researchers conclude that there is little evidence that exposure to ELF-EMFs from power lines causes leukemia, brain tumors, or any other cancers in children (1, 6–10).

Exposure in homes

Many studies have also looked for possible associations between magnetic fields measured in homes and residences and the risk of childhood cancers, especially leukemia. Individual studies have had varying results, but most have not found an association or have found it only for those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic fields, which are present in few residences (11–14).

To develop the most accurate estimates of the risks of leukemia in children from magnetic fields in the home, researchers have analyzed the combined data from many studies. In one such analysis that combined data from nine studies done in several countries, leukemia risk was increased only in those children with the highest exposure (a category that included less than 1 percent of the children); these children had a twofold excess risk of childhood leukemia (15). In another analysis that combined data from 15 individual studies, a similar increase in risk was seen in children with the highest exposure level (16). A more recent analysis of seven studies published after 2000 found a similar trend, but the increase was not statistically significant (17).

Overall, these analyses suggest that if there is any increase in leukemia risk from magnetic fields, it is restricted to children with the very highest exposure levels. But it is possible that this increase is not real, because if magnetic fields caused childhood leukemia, certain patterns would have been found, such as increasing risk with increasing levels of magnetic field exposure. Such patterns were not seen.

Another way that people can be exposed to magnetic fields in the home is from household electrical appliances. Although magnetic fields near many electrical appliances are higher than those near power lines, appliances contribute less to a person’s total exposure to magnetic fields because most appliances are used only for short periods of time. Again, studies have not found consistent evidence for an association between the use of household electrical appliances and risk of childhood leukemia (18).

Parental exposure and risk in children

Several studies have examined possible associations between maternal or paternal exposure to high levels of magnetic fields before conception and/or during pregnancy and the risk of cancer in their future children. The results to date have been inconsistent (19, 20). Studies are ongoing to evaluate this question.

Exposure and cancer survival

A few studies have investigated whether magnetic field exposure is associated with prognosis or survival of children with leukemia. Several small retrospective studies of this question have yielded inconsistent results (21–23). An analysis that combined prospective data for more than 3000 children with acute lymphoid leukemia from eight countries showed that ELF magnetic field exposure was not associated with their survival or risk of relapse (24).

What is the evidence that magnetic field exposure is linked to cancer in adults?


Although some studies have reported associations between ELF-EMF exposure and cancer in adults, other studies have not found evidence for such associations.

The majority of epidemiologic studies have shown no relationship between breast cancer in women and exposure to ELF-EMFs in the home (25–28), although several individual studies have shown hints of an association (29, 30).

Several studies conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s reported that people who worked in some electrical occupations (such as power station operators and phone line workers) had higher-than-expected rates of some types of cancer, particularly leukemia, brain tumors, and male breast cancer (1). Some occupational studies showed very small increases in the risks of leukemia and brain cancer, but these results were based on participants’ job titles and not on actual measurements of their exposures. More recent studies, including some that considered the participant’s job title as well as measurements of their exposures, have not shown consistent findings of an increasing risk of leukemia, brain tumors, or female breast cancer with increasing exposure to magnetic fields at work (29, 31–35).