Study shows little evidence connecting mobile phone use to cancer

Last May the World Health Organization released a report that heavy users of mobile phones might be at risk of getting cancer. It was a controversial report and many disputed the conclusion of WHO. Now a new report that looked at previously published research into this topic concludes that there was no evidence that links using cell phones to getting cancer.

The research was reviewed by a panel of scientists from the US, the UK, and Sweden and published in the Environmental Health Perspectives journal. The report states, "Although there remains some uncertainty, the trend in the accumulating evidence is increasingly against the hypothesis that mobile phone use can cause brain tumors in adults." Previously WHO said that using mobile phones was "possibly carcinogenic to humans," adding that heavy cell phone users are at higher risk of getting glioma, a type of brain cancer.

Studies conducted in a number of countries showed "no indication of increases in brain tumors up to 20 years after the introduction of mobile phones and 10 years after their use became widespread" according to the report.  One large study, released in 2010, looked at nearly 13,000 cell phone users over 10 years. However today's review of the study stated that it had issues because it was based solely on interviews with its subjects.

While there doesn't appear to be a huge health threat from using mobile phones, the article states that mobile phone use is so widespread across the world that people would likely still use them even if solid evidence of a health issue was discovered.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Nokia reportedly cutting phone prices in Europe

Next Story

Microsoft pays $250K for university to move to Office365

19 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

So this report, which is only a report on reports, conflicts with the last report that was only a report on reports! As I said for that report, the next report will conflict with this report.

Is there anyone actually doing a proper study?

The funny/sad truth now is if they find out they do cause cancer people will keep on using them like so many people who have not stopped smoking. Its just now if people are used to something, there do it regardless of risk it seems.

A smarter study would simply be to detect any ionizing radiation that could be released from cell phone. Cheaper, and doesn't require 20 years.

cleverclogs said,
probably more likely to get cancer from the chemical compounds in the phones.

lol, if you ate them or something? nom nom nom

Ryuujinjakka said,
wondering the term they use 'cell phone' is that reflecting on 'smartphone' use today??? or just regular D-pad cell phone???

i would think analog phones would be worse instead of digital phones

Lachlan said,

i would think analog phones would be worse instead of digital phones


Actually, it should be the opposite. At least for GSM and IS-54/136. Analog and digital phones have used the same frequency bands until 1996 when the PCS band was opened up for digital-only services. Regardless, GSM and TDMA-based technologies transmit less frequently because of time division multiplexing so they should subject a user to less radiation in any given period of time over AMPS.

xpxp2002 said,

Actually, it should be the opposite. At least for GSM and IS-54/136. Analog and digital phones have used the same frequency bands until 1996 when the PCS band was opened up for digital-only services. Regardless, GSM and TDMA-based technologies transmit less frequently because of time division multiplexing so they should subject a user to less radiation in any given period of time over AMPS.

You forget to consider that CDMA and dirivitive technologies, although broadcasting "consistantly", broadcast at a lower PEP than other "channel" based technologies such as AMPS, TDMA, GPRS, etc.

AnarKhy said,
They also said cigars were not related with cancer some time ago.

They say that about all crap food, drinks, poluted air, etc...

So, trying to live will give you cancer.

AnarKhy said,
They also said cigars were not related with cancer some time ago.
I hate this kind of comment. Have you ever studied anything at all on the theory of knowledge and scientific paradigms? Do you have any idea if the fields of electromagnetic waves, histology, cytology, or oncology are mature?

MafiotuL said,

They say that about all crap food, drinks, poluted air, etc...

So, trying to live will give you cancer.

That's right. Even water has the POTENTIAL to give you cancer. Thing is, our body can combat mutation, but the more we subject our body to mutation, the more probablility one slips through the net and forms a tumor. It only take 1 single cell. It's about balancing the risk of your lifestyle. Always try and take care of your body. I for one generally use loudspeaker and headphones. I mean, why subject your body to something mutagenic when you can help it?

Shock Doc said,
Well no **** sherlock

little evidence = some evidence does it not?

like saying that there is little chance ill come back to this site, I may come back but chances are slim.. wait for the studies when ppl have been using cell phones for 50-70 years of your their lives.. not only like 5-10 years (because before ppl usually had a home phone and cell phone unlike today where i just have a cell phone and talk on it for upto 2 hours a day).. old phones only lasted for like an hour of talking in an entire day..

Lachlan said,
little evidence = some evidence does it not?
In the western world, little is considered to be none. LOL
Lachlan said,
like saying that there is little chance ill come back to this site, I may come back but chances are slim.. wait for the studies when ppl have been using cell phones for 50-70 years of your their lives.. not only like 5-10 years (because before ppl usually had a home phone and cell phone unlike today where i just have a cell phone and talk on it for upto 2 hours a day).. old phones only lasted for like an hour of talking in an entire day..
The problem is people don't seem to understand the difference between a 0% chance and a 1% chance of getting *deadly* *health* *problems*.