The Cell Phone-Cancer Enigma: Do We Have Reason To Worry?
Alan BC Dang
January 21, 2006 3:08 AM
comment(s) - last by
Recent study claims no evidence of a link between cellphone use and cancer but results were contradictory, leading in both directions
British Medical Journal
published a paper evaluating the relationship between mobile phone use and gliomas, a type of a cancer that represents 50% of all primary brain tumors. The researchers found no evidence to support the claim that cell phone use increases the likelihood of being diagnosed with a glioma. Unfortunately this doesn't mean that we know cell phones are safe.
In this case-control study, the researchers interviewed 966 patients who had been diagnosed with a glioma in the UK. These patients were asked to recall the frequency and duration of their calls, the side of their head that the phone was used on, whether or not they used hands-free ear pieces, as well as the specific types of phones that were used. The researchers then obtained the same information from 1,716 individuals who did not have cancer. When the two groups were compared, no evidence was found to suggest that there was an increased risk of glioma compared to the cumulative number of calls and hours of use.
The researchers did however encounter interesting findings. There was evidence suggesting that there was a higher risk of developing a tumor on the same side of the brain where the phone was used. Their 95% confidence interval was 1.02 to 1.52, meaning that there was somewhere between 2 to 52% increase in risk for developing a tumor and that there was only a 5% chance that the difference could be less than 2% or higher than 52%. In parallel to this finding, they found a reduced risk of tumor when the phone was used on the opposite side of the head. This time, the range was a 7 to 39% reduction in risk with only a 5% chance that the reduction in risk was less than 7% or greater than 39%.
Despite their conclusion about having no evidence, this bit of data actually supports the claim that cell phones can be dangerous. However, the researchers write that these differences are due to recall bias because patients know the side of their brain that has cancer. Patients may be biased into reporting that they used the cell phone more frequently on the cancerous side.
This inadequate evidence for either conclusion captures the problem of a case-control study: recall bias. If you cannot trust your subjects to accurately remember which side of their heads they use their phones on more frequently, how can you trust the rest of the data? Other problems with the study were that the researchers were only able to interview 51% of the patients who they identified as having gliomas "mainly because rapid death prevented [the researchers] from approaching all of them." Finally, the researchers only looked at one type of brain tumor and not others.
In the end, the study does not give any definitive results. It simply says that evidence could not be found on whether or not cellphones were dangerous. In addition, there
statistical evidence suggesting that tumors were more likely to be seen on the same side a phone was used, although there are confounding variables that may come into play.
While a cohort study (where people are followed over time) would be better than the case-control study (where people are asked to look back in time), the nature of medical research involves doing lower-budget research first before moving on. These types of studies open the door for more expensive and bigger studies. Bottom line? More research is needed before we really know the answer.
More information on gliomas
can be found here
Hepworth SJ, et. al.
Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study. BMJ, doi:10.1136/bmj.38720.687975.55 (published 20 January 2006)
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: Welcome Alan Dang
1/21/2006 8:31:58 AM
Welcome aboard, Alan. I've read plenty of your stuff over at FS. I haven't agreed with all of it, but we're all entitled to opinions, right? Maybe they'll have to change your title to DailyTech Effect at FS if DT becomes big enough? LOL
RE: Welcome Alan Dang
1/21/2006 9:54:18 AM
Hahaha yeah that would be appropriate! ;)
RE: Welcome Alan Dang
1/21/2006 11:12:21 AM
DailyTech is more news than editorial, so there won't be too much in the way of opinion here. ;)
"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher
Air Force Expects to Save Over $50 Million in 10 Years by Using iPads
May 17, 2013, 12:26 PM
Former Intel CEO Regrets Passing Up on iPhone Gravy Train
May 17, 2013, 11:46 AM
Intel-Based Lenovo Yoga 11 Lands, is $240 USD More Expensive Than ARM Version
May 17, 2013, 11:02 AM
Galaxy S IV Looks to Hit 10 Million Sales in Just Four Weeks
May 17, 2013, 10:12 AM
Nintendo Wii U: No EA Games for You!
May 17, 2013, 8:35 AM
Quick Note: CyanogenMod Hits 5 Million Users
May 16, 2013, 1:42 PM
Most Popular Articles
Report: Microsoft Eyes Return to "Dying" Windows 7 Path After Windows 8 Flop
May 13, 2013, 9:50 AM
Windows 8.1 Will Be Free; Microsoft Holds Onto Struggling ARM Variant
May 14, 2013, 2:57 PM
Bill Gates Gets Teary-Eyed While Discussing Steve Jobs, Shows Off Life-Saving Tech on 60 Minutes
May 13, 2013, 12:30 PM
Google Announces "Pure" Galaxy Nexus S4 for $649, Android Updates
May 15, 2013, 1:42 PM
Google's Eric Schmidt: "Don't Be Evil" was Stupid
May 14, 2013, 11:00 AM
Latest Blog Posts
Parents of Pre-Teen Drivers Commonly Practice Distracted Driving Says Study
May 9, 2013, 7:16 AM
Apple's iOS 7 Running Into Internal Delays Due to Massive Overhaul
May 1, 2013, 4:26 PM
Elon Musk Willing to Spend More Money on Widening of 405 Freeway
Apr 26, 2013, 7:28 PM
New $100 Bill Due in October
Apr 24, 2013, 11:52 PM
Volkswagen Shows off iBeetle in Shanghai
Apr 22, 2013, 9:29 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information