Print 15 comment(s) - last by Calabros.. on Jun 27 at 4:25 AM

  (Source: Getty Images)

The largest study to date on the topic of cell towers and pregnancy has found no link between living near cell phone towers and becoming the victim of childhood cancers.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Put away the tin foil hats, your children are safe

There's a longstanding debate over whether cell phones cause cancer.  Some studies have indicated that extensive cell phone use could be correlated to developing aggressive, fast-growing cancers.  And despite generally failing to present compelling evidence, some doctors also voice support for the theory that cell phones and cell phone towers can cause cancer.  

That fear has led many to demonstrate against and block the installation of cell phone towers.  It has also led to San Francisco, California passing the nation's first legislation mandating cell phone makers to provide information on EMF radiation levels of specific handsets.

Now one of the largest studies to date has examined people living in close proximity to cell phone towers and found no link between them and childhood cancer.  The study examined over 7,000 pregnant women and followed their children through birth and their first five years of life.

The incredibly extensive study consider every one of the 81,178 cell phone towers/masts in Britain -- which support Britain's Vodafone, O2, France Telecom's's Orange, and Deutsche Telekom's's T-Mobile networks.  It found that children who developed cancer before the age of five were no more likely to be living next to one of these broadcasting stations than not living next to one.

Eileen Rubery, former head of British government's public health prevention department, characterized the study as robust and voiced relief, stating, "This is a carefully done study by a highly reputable group of environmental scientists.  It is reassuring that no adverse affects have been found and this fits with the anticipated and known biological effects from such sites.It is reassuring that no adverse affects have been found and this fits with the anticipated and known biological effects from such sites."

Paul Elliot, director of the center for environment and health at Imperial College London, who helped lead the research, comments, "These results are reassuring.  We found no pattern to suggest that the children of mums living near a base station during pregnancy had a greater risk of developing cancer than those who lived elsewhere."

The term "cell phone mast" is a colloquialism in British vernacular for a GSM Base Transceiver Station (BTS).  This term is often used to refer to both towers and radio masts have had cell phone transmitting and receiving equipment attached to them, along with other support electronics.

The full study can be found here published in the prestigious 
British Medical Journal.  

While such health scares (such as the autism vaccine scare) often persist for years after conclusively being disproven, it appears that those who do their research can be reassured that the vast body of scientific evidence points to it being perfectly safe to live next to cell phone towers while pregnant.

Hopefully, the researchers next turn to whether there's any link between towers and adult cancers. 

In related news, an extensive study following 13,000 cell phone users over 10 years, which looked for a cell phone-brain cancer link, was published last month.  Its conclusion was that there was no link.  That study, published by Interphone, can be found here [PDF].

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Publishing EMF specs for phones
By Bateluer on 6/24/2010 8:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
I still like that requirement though. It may not cause cancer, but its good information to know.

RE: Publishing EMF specs for phones
By Motoman on 6/24/2010 10:50:27 AM , Rating: 3
Why? I don't believe it would do anyone any good to have such information, other than to continue to spaz out and declare that *this* cell phone is less cancer-inducing than *that* cellphone.

By Dorkyman on 6/24/2010 5:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
Publishing radiation specs to me is as relevant as a law stating that cellphone weights must be accurate to 2 decimal places ("...176.23 grams versus 177.09 grams. Hmmm, which to choose..."). What difference would it make?

By Digimonkey on 6/24/2010 8:47:49 AM , Rating: 1
Why is there a picture of a fat Waldo in this article?

RE: huh
By Aloonatic on 6/24/2010 11:02:22 AM , Rating: 5

Ummm... Duh.
By BBeltrami on 6/24/2010 12:28:11 PM , Rating: 2
Cell phones have been commercially available in the US since the late 80's, and there's always been a crowd yelling, "Wolf!! .... er... Cancer!"

But we now have over 20 years of experience with them. The average American is on their second or third phone. Given those facts, the continued suggestion of a causal link between a health hazard and cell phone use also suggests an excessive ability to disconnect from reality.

I can't be the only human becoming increasingly weary of, and also increasingly angry with these alarmists and fear merchants.

About that wolf... My memory is fuzzy. How did that story end, again?

RE: Ummm... Duh.
By Phoque on 6/24/2010 4:41:08 PM , Rating: 1
Still, I wouldn't want any of these cell tower near my apartment nor any of those 300KV power lines neither.

Just as a precaution.

Believe us, in sake of God
By Calabros on 6/27/2010 4:25:53 AM , Rating: 2
why they so concentrate on the word Reassure ?

BTW, someone tell me please how should i pronounce this: "Deutsche Telekom's's T-Mobile networks" :-)

These studies..
By InvertMe on 6/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: These studies..
By nafhan on 6/24/2010 9:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
And common sense. We're talking about radio here...

RE: These studies..
By Spivonious on 6/24/2010 10:28:10 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly. Cell phones are just another bandwidth of radio waves. We already have short wave, AM, FM, VHF, UHF, wi-fi, and countless others. Why would cell phones do anything different?

RE: These studies..
By JonB on 6/24/2010 10:48:43 AM , Rating: 3
Because - if people are Talking about cancer on their cell phones, it will induce cancer in those nearby. The audio, when digitized and compressed, resonates with the structure of DNA, causing replication errors during mitosis. The 23rd chromosome, with the XY difference, means that men should be less susceptible because of the unequal lengths.

Text messages use a different compression algorithm and do not have the same effect, so you can text "cancer cancer cancer" all day without guilt.

no, I'm not serious.

RE: These studies..
By Akdor 1154 on 6/25/2010 2:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
We already have short wave, AM, FM, VHF, UHF, wi-fi, and countless others. Why would cell phones do anything different?

Prolonged exposure to UV will cause cancer, for instance - and I'm sure you wouldn't like to sleep in an X-Ray machine every night. I'm not saying that the article is wrong, I'm pleased that the study has been done (and reported on) sensibly. I'm just saying that there was ample reason for doing the study in the first place. :)

RE: These studies..
By sviola on 6/24/2010 11:40:49 AM , Rating: 1
The study wasn't done in the should take the tin foil hat off, it is impairing your comprehension skills.

RE: These studies..
By sleepeeg3 on 6/24/2010 1:42:46 PM , Rating: 2
It's the same technology!!! GSM is used worldwide, same phones are used.
UK Orange = GSM

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki