Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.
The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks. It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks. It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced. Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.
He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade. Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.
"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.
Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".
mobile phones emit very little energy into the brain. the change in heat in the brain due to use of mobile phones is tiny compared to natural fluctuations in heat due to the body and the external environment. it's like saying going to hot countries too often causes cancer. when people hear radiation they immediately think of gamma radiation, like phones have uranium in them or something.
Take any cell phone and place it next to or near a crt computer monitor or tv. Now accept a call from it....it will disrupt the crt pattern and cause the monitor to distort the picture on the screen. That to me says that it emits at least some energy and/or radiation. Now take that and multiple that by how may times a day you talk on your phone by how many years you use a phone and that you could be rather scary.
Now also think of how complex and powerful those phones are getting....some are capable of replacing computers for simple tasks. That scares that crap out of me in the amount of energy it releases.
Take any cell phone and place it next to or near a crt computer monitor or tv. Now accept a call from it....it will disrupt the crt pattern and cause the monitor to distort the picture on the screen. That to me says that it emits at least some energy and/or radiation. Now take that and multiple that by how may times a day you talk on your phone by how many years you use a phone and that you could be rather scary.
Now also think of how complex and powerful those phones are getting....some are capable of replacing computers for simple tasks. That scares that crap out of me in the amount of energy it releases.
That's funny, I've answered my cell phone in front of my CRT and it hasn't affected the display at all. And that's sitting less than 2 feet away. I've also talked on my cell infront of my CRT tv less than a few feet away and it was not distorted at all. You must have some super cell phone or something. That being said, I rarely use my cell phone and if I do it's mostly for text messaging.
Take any cell phone and place it next to or near a crt computer monitor or tv. Now accept a call from it....it will disrupt the crt pattern and cause the monitor to distort the picture on the screen. That to me says that it emits at least some energy and/or radiation. Now take that and multiple that by how may times a day you talk on your phone by how many years you use a phone and that you could be rather scary.
Now also think of how complex and powerful those phones are getting....some are capable of replacing computers for simple tasks. That scares that crap out of me in the amount of energy it releases.
Are you serious? First off, GSM phones, not CDMA/TDMA, are the phones that cause signal interference with CRTs, speakers and certain devices. You only notice that interference because the proximity of the frequency of each device. Not because the phone is so powerful it disrupts any electrical device its near. Another thing, just because a phone is getting more advanced, doesnt mean its output of energy will necessarily increase. Power consumption will increase but not its signal.
To align your logic with this article is completely absurd.
I've noticed that only when phones are on the EVDO/EDGE networks (the old analog network) that they interfere with CRTs, radios, etc. I've had my cell phone sitting on my desk next to my computer speakers numerous times, and it only interferes when I get calls on (or when it's transitioning back to) the analog network. All the times I've received calls or texts while my phone is on the digital network I've never heard any interference from either my computer speakers or my radio.
I've seen so many of these studies I don't know what to believe anymore. I've seen numerous studies that say cell phones don't cause cancer, and I've seen numerous ones like this that suggest that they DO indeed cause cancer.
Makes me wonder if studies like this one are indeed genuine and are funded independently, and the ones that say that cell phones don't cause cancer are funded by the wireless phone carriers...
This is the only detail we really have about how they did the study. Since these people have been using cellphones since 1998 and earlier, I assume that they use their cell more than most people, which is why they're effected by the radiation from the cellphone.
... invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
Considering other studies have shown no link between cellphones and brain cancer, I assume that as long as you limit the use of your cellphone, you have nothing to worry about.
Also , the ear closest to phone gets warm, without the phone touching it.... these things caused me limit my use of wireless communication with out an earpiece
-Spenser
I'm always near Cellphones (and often in buildings with the Masts on the roof!
That's right no one, but the "study" does make for sensationalistic headlines don't it?
I've been using one myself for almost 20 years now, though somewhat infrequently (you never get over how MUCH it used to cost per minute 20 years ago).
While important to not chicken little and freak out, I think people would be well advised to pay attention to this warning.
We do know that above ground high power transmission lines DO cause cancer, especially in children that live and go to school near them. X-rays are capable of causing cancer as well. We also know that microwaves (inside your microwave) cook food and explode oil. Outside the microwave choclate can still be melted. Yes there are naturally occuring radio, X and cosmic rays bouuncing all over the univers, and you are bathed in radio, TV etc signals even under you tin foil hat. But I think generally these are much weaker than what we are talking about. My point is that not all signals are the same strength and not all wavelengths have the same effect. Even the visible light spectrum at very high power (the sun) can give you cancer as well. (ever hear of skin cancer people?)
I think it is a GIVEN that near proximity man-made energy waves of any type CAN become cancerous or even directly fatal at the right distance and amplitude. Now the real questions are "how close?" and "how powerful?"
I know I for one will be limiting my use even more until there is more reliable data from either side.
Europe seems to overreact to everything anymore. AntiTrust, Windows/Microsoft stuff, etc. They just want attention.
Wow, what a really insightful, thoughtful and interesting comment.
hahahahahahahaha.
The whole base for the cancer concern is related to radio waves, and it has been proven that you are saturated with more radio waves of all ranges minute by minute everyday. There are more then enough radio
Almost all the studies that show cell phones are dangerous have a major flaw, they count increase of cases based upon the groups, but ignore other factors, including population growth. One study even used several groups of people from Russia that had just starting using cellphones over the last few years, and had a high cancer rate, ignoring the factors related to location and exposer to radiation from local Nuke plants and such.
Some of the towns used are the same ones used to show how Nuke power as dangerous to local environment, (only Russian design based power plants are an issue, they are called Rad + as they add radiation to the environment, where western designed, such as US/Japan/France are Rad -, the absorb background radiation).
There are current 2 studies that show 802.11 signals are more dangerous then cell phones, and the signals are everywhere now a days.
Yep, I'm worried alright.
Do you eat your cell phone?
As if all the cellphone towers are any better for us, either way we're already dead.. lol
Here is an article, it's not from the site i saw originally saw it on, which i think was Neowin, but it confirms my quote.
http://time.blogs.com/daily_rx/2006/12/cellphones.html
There is a method to document and cite your sources, MISTER SCIENTIST.
But, in favor of the article, people that talk on their cell phones next to me anger me equally as much as smokers do. No matter which cancer causing addiction you're using, you're still creating air pollution! Whether it be verbal or smoky, it's all crap!
If everything they say in the article about this scientist is true, I would be inclined to respect his opinion when he states his findings, considering all the awards and stuff this guy has won. For those who cite studies about mobile phones NOT causing cancer, it is pointed out in the article above that many of those studies do not follow mobile phone users for long enough periods of time. This scientist apparantly is a cancer expert and claims that many cancers take more than 10 years to develop (which I am inclined to believe is true), which would explain why many studies have not found increases in cancer risk.
Anyway, I think people should definately be wary about this topic and pay attention when seemingly-renowned scientists offer their opinions and spend their time studying this stuff. I think this is probably pretty credible evidence and I want mobile phone companies and handset manufacturers to pay attention to this to help minimize everyone's risk... it's not going to do mobile companies any good if their customers are dropping like flies from cancer down the road.
The whole point here, for all you experts keen to shoot this guy down, is that this is the first time anyone has taken a LONG-TERM view of things to get a good picture.
We're talking 10+ years here, and no ****, most of us in 10 years will be using mobiles... hence the need to carefully consider NOW what we do.
The whole reason a lot of literature points to no danger is because they are SHORT-TERM. If cancer takes around 10 years to develop, you need to consider results over a LONG period. Does that make sense?
And for you EMR experts, we're talking invisible radiation here that you might not even feel. It doesn't HAVE to disturb the picture of a CRT to be serious enough to cause health issues.
If you look at this guy's paper, there's a fair few references listed so he's obviously done his homework. And if he is the first person to take a long-term view, then he has something important we need to listen to... something that we haven't heard before. And it's that mobile phones CAN increase the risk of brain tumours, however inconvenient it might be to start avoiding using them.
Note that using bluetooth headsets or unshielded handsfrees can be just as bad (as mentioned in the paper).
Looking forward to reading the replies to come from all you cancer experts on Neowin taking issue with this study
but at the end of the day people will do as the please... i just hope they dont complain if they get brain cancer
surely you knew this already? this place is packed with experts in everything! what's even more amazing is the fact that 80% of them are under the age of 20
surely you knew this already? this place is packed with experts in everything! what's even more amazing is the fact that 80% of them are under the age of 20
lol
Let's break it down into small steps for the simple-minded:
1. Radio waves have been around for like what, 100 years or so? Obviously there have been long-term studies into this, and obviously since then nothing major has arisen to concern us.
2. Up until now, we have been UNABLE to conduct long-term studies on mobile phone radiation.The studies conducted so far have been SHORT-TERM. So, like the study says, we are only NOW entering the period where we can observe the long-term studies of mobile phone radiation. From 2008-2012 or so. This is the first study to have taken into account the long-term effects of mobile phone radiation.
3. Other EMR studies ARE NOT RELEVANT because the use of mobile phones has a unique method of exposure. NEVER BEFORE have we observed the direct effects of EMR on the brain in this way, because we have never, prior to the use of mobile phones, held EMR-emitting devices to our heads for hours at any given time. EMR studies on the brain in general are not specific enough to be of any interest.
4. This guy is not a politician - there is a link to an actual study with references, and this is written by a recognised neurosurgeon. He wouldn't publish nonsense because he is presumably a professional (and has nothing to gain by causing panic), and because he would not put his name to anything that would tarnish his reputation.
Maybe neowin should ban non-computer related news, because obviously there are a lot of overly-cynical retards among us. Maybe it's got something to do with hating news, after opposing the Iraq war became 'cool' in the early days. Oh look at me, I'm an intellectual - I take a cynical view to EVERYTHING I read, even when it makes sense!
This doesn't mean the study is 100% true - all it means is that we can't dismiss it offhand, and that we should take it SERIOUSLY. Like Co_Co said, we will see whether this study stands up to REAL scrutiny soon, i.e. peer review. We should also expect to see more studies come out in the near future that take a closer look at this whole issue.
Let's break it down into small steps for the simple-minded:
1. Radio waves ... [snipped]
Maybe neowin should ban non-computer related news, because obviously there are a lot of overly-cynical retards among us. Maybe it's got something to do with hating news, after opposing the Iraq war became 'cool' in the early days. Oh look at me, I'm an intellectual - I take a cynical view to EVERYTHING I read, even when it makes sense!
This doesn't mean the study is 100% true - all it means is that we can't dismiss it offhand, and that we should take it SERIOUSLY. Like Co_Co said, we will see whether this study stands up to REAL scrutiny soon, i.e. peer review. We should also expect to see more studies come out in the near future that take a closer look at this whole issue.
Thank you! Well said.
...
Maybe neowin should ban non-computer related news, because obviously there are a lot of overly-cynical retards among us. Maybe it's got something to do with hating news, after opposing the Iraq war became 'cool' in the early days. Oh look at me, I'm an intellectual - I take a cynical view to EVERYTHING I read, even when it makes sense!
I think it's probably a combination of that and a distrust for all these studies and papers published by nutjobs out there. It can be hard to filter the sane sources from the foil-hat-wearing kooks when the media sensationalizes everything equally. And yes, there are more idiots that post here than rational people. The internet was much brighter place before AOL brought every moron on-line.
...
1. Radio waves have been around for like what, 100 years or so?
...
2. Up until now, we have been UNABLE to conduct long-term studies on mobile phone radiation.The studies conducted so far have been SHORT-TERM.
...
Radio waves have been around for ever, they aren't man made.
And even longer studies have been done on just mobile phones, One study followed people for 21 years.
Heavy use - 50% risk
Both are long term studies. There is definitely a risk. I've seen people die from cancer, and believe me, you don't want it.
Texting whilst jay walking, whilst driving & whilst walking on the pavement.
Using the phone to make and receive calls with respect to the above whilst driving a motor vehicle.
I don't have a cell phone, as I don't understand the need or the point for one.
However, if it was proven to be fact that cell phones cause tumours then thats an excellent reason not to have one.
Last edited by leesmithg on 31 Mar 2008 - 10:19
You know, these kinds of pronouncements would have a greater impact if they were made in a peer review context instead of by those who make and/or sell the offending product or technology.
Seriously, if you're one of these people, I hope that brain cancer does get you.
I personally have probably been using a Cell Phone for the past 8 years. My usage doesn't exceed 5 hours a week if that so I'm sure that I am less likely to be a "clinical case" than others.
I'm interested to see also whether having a Bluetooth Earpiece actually ceases this particular threat?
I can't think of one good reason to ignore this finding completely though, so I will be watching my usage and keeping up to date on this story.
I wouldn't worry about it. People can get funding for any kind of research. Remember the ketchup studies back in the mid 90's researching flow rates and the like?
Last edited by SirEvan on 31 Mar 2008 - 16:49
Two words.
Head.
Set.
Pretty soon they'll be saying our GPS is going to give us cancer and the clap and the rays from the satellite will fry our car engines...
Anyways, just My Opinion.
Oh and pretty soon all the energy drinks we drink will be worse for us than Chain smoking & Chronic cell phone use put together and we're all doomed to a horrible cancerous death. I'm more worried about getting smashed on the freeway by the thousands of idiots "driving" then my cancerous brain won't matter if it's on my dashboard...
Last edited by clotz2000 on 31 Mar 2008 - 21:37
your head 24/7 to do any damage....come to think of it, I think some teenagers probably do.
If you are so concerned about microwaves, get a blue tooth headset.
Even the radiation from those isn't enough to bother you.
it won't bother you. Do cigarettes "cause" cancer? No, but if you are GENETICALLY predisposed to
develop cancer (history in your family) then I don't think they "cause" but can contribute.
I know several people, including my grandfather who smoked UNFILTERED cigarettes from the time
he went overseas in WW1, until the mid 70's (60+ years) who NEVER developed cancer. He quit in the
mid 70's because "he wasn't paying no damn 75 cents for a pack of cigarettes!
years, dying at the age of 98, because he didn't want to live anymore.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.