h.e.s.e. 
project
the international scientific Internet platform on topical issues
h.e.s.e.-UK News
Mobile phone risk
Which is worse? Living near a mobile phone base station, or using a mobile phone rather a lot? The established argument runs that it’s all about intensity of radiation so therefore phones must be the more risky, if anything is. Dr Andrew Goldsworthy presents an alternative rationale in Why mobile phone masts can be more dangerous than the phones. Clearly both require equal scrutiny, so see also our masts research and phones research.
Nevertheless, the phones research continues with regular indications that all is certainly not well with mobile phone use. The media stories might look scary (‘Mobiles may be death sentence’), but we continually find sincere surgeons and scientists presenting and analysing the long-term data, issuing a warning and hoping profoundly that they are wrong. The story is a 30-year one, because of the latency of tumours in the head.
In the UK the mobile phones market is saturated, so the money is not flowing as it once did. But globally, the economic significance of the mobile industry is truly immense. One can understand why keeping the lid on what could be a massive future epidemic is so important. One could surmise that having everyone on mobile phone as a multi-function access and tracking device could serve ‘national security’ interests in a world facing multiple social and environmental crises.
US brain surgeon Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc(Med), PhD, FRACS, undertook a 14-month investigation into the link between heavy, long-term use of mobile telephones and the development of malignant brain tumours, reviewing more than 100 international studies on the subject. His conclusions are published on the US brain surgery website, www.brain-surgery.us. The cellphone industry replied that to the contrary, the evidence against any harm from mobile phone use was ‘overwhelming’. This is a highly subjective word, frequently used by the industry, and in truth is both misleading and inaccurate. You can decide how thorough and observant Dr Khurana has been.
- Mobile Phone-Brain Tumour: Public Health Advisory, Vini G. Khurana, MBBS, BSc(Med), PhD, FRACS (about the author)
The following are some interesting analyses by Lloyd Morgan on the Hardell studies of phones and the comparison between their research and the Interphone studies. Particularly telling are the scatter graphs in the second entry, showing a very graphical representation of the results compared against each other.
- Increase of risk is based on phone use
- Comparison of Swedish research and Interphone studies, with a link to:
- The comparison graphs themselves. Three graphs are available, just click on the relevant link at the top of the page.
(Source: Lloyd Morgan, at Powerwatch)
Since these comments, these further studies have been published:
- Danish Interphone study, December 2006. Mobiles in the clear? Maybe not.
- Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries, Lahkola et al., International Journal of Cancer, Jan 2007
- Is there a 10 year latency for mobile phone-induced tumours?
More comment on mobile phone studies:
- see also our phones research pages
- Hardell and Mild comment on the first Danish Study
- George Carlo on why a ‘negative’ study by Hardell is then ignored
- Use of cellular and cordless telephones and risk of testicular cancer, Hardell et al., International Journal of Andrology, find no association, but as a result of this study note: ‘However, our results in other studies of an association with brain tumours are strengthened as these studies were performed with overlapping time for interview with similar study methods.’ (see next)
- Tumour risk associated with use of cellular telephones or cordless desktop telephones, Hardell et al., World Journal of Surgical Oncology, Volume 4, Oct. 2006
