[Ben]

What we all already know, reiterated again for those who pretend they don't...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4196762.stm


Mobile phone use does not raise the risk of cancer, at least in the first 10 years of use, the largest investigation to date shows.

Some past studies had suggested an increased risk of acoustic neuroma - a tumour of the nerve connecting the ear and the brain - but others did not.

The latest Institute of Cancer Research work includes data from five European countries and more than 4,000 people.

Expert advice is still to limit mobile phone use as a precautionary measure.

There are more than one billion mobile phone users worldwide.

Longer follow-up is needed to check that health problems do not arise with many more years of use, the researchers say in the British Journal of Cancer.

An independent group for the UK government, led by Sir William Stewart, that looked into the safety of mobile phones in the late 1990s also concluded mobile phones did not appear to harm health.

However, the group said there was evidence that radiation from mobile phones could potentially cause adverse health effects, and therefore a "precautionary approach" to their use should be adopted.

Precautions

The government currently advises mobile phone users to keep their call times short.

And children under the age of 16 should use mobile phones for essential calls only, because their head and nervous systems may still be developing.

The latest data from the UK, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden, included 678 people with acoustic neuroma and 3,553 without this form of cancer.

This revealed no relation between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the number of years for which the mobile phones had been used, the time since first use, total hours of use or total number of calls.

Nor was there any link with analogue or digital phones or whether or not a hands-free kit was used.

On balance, the evidence suggests there is no substantial risk of acoustic neuroma in the first decade of use - but the possibility of some effect after longer periods remains open, the researchers concluded.

Senior investigator Professor Anthony Swedlow said: "Whether there are longer-term risks remains unknown, reflecting the fact that this is a relatively recent technology."

Dr Michael Clark from the Health Protection Agency said: "This is good news but we still need to be a bit cautious."

Dr Julie Sharp, senior science information officer at Cancer Research UK, said: "This study provides further evidence that using mobile phones does not increase the risk of brain tumours.

"However, it is important that researchers continue to monitor phone users over the coming years as mobiles are still a relatively new invention."

The research is part of a bigger study that will be published next year.

A Swedish study identified an increased risk of acoustic neuromas among people who had used mobile phones for 10 years or more.

People have been concerned that the radiofrequency from phones might cause cancers, despite the absence of a known biological mechanism for this.

The guidelines remain simple. It's not advisable to spend every waking hour with your mobile phone stuck to the side of your head. That said, it's hardly advisable you spend every waking hour doing any single activity...

[Hands0n]

The trouble with all of this is that when we finally know the truth it could well be a bit late for a lot of people. Many of us will recall what happened with Thalidomide. Now, I'm not for a moment suggesting that the two are the same, far from it. But there is unquestioningly the potential for damage to humans from microwave transmissions and this is even acknowledged in the findings. The long-term effects of even the incumbent SAR ratings are not truly known and cannot be accurately predicted by even our finest minds (who are often found to disagree among themselves about this).

Like any stimulus, microwaves will affect different people in different ways. Those with a medical predisposition against such RF energy may well incur tumours and cancers (as has been reported in media in previous years). Maybe the majority of us are equally unaffected by the RF energies in question.

I am inclined to consider unrepresentative a 4,000 people sample as quoted in the article. To be meaningful against the backdrop of the billions of mobile phone users worldwide the sample needs to be highly varied and across a larger number of people and their circumstances. Possibly an impossible task? And what of those that have allegedly contracted illnesses from mobile phone use? Are they part of the sample, or considered in the findings?

In the end, we are [still] being warned to take precautionary use of the mobile handsets. This is the info they want to make public. What of the info that they'd rather not?

Oh to be a cynic :)

[3g-g]

I always feel it's all well and good having articles like this showing that there is no conclusive argument either for or against mobile transmission stations, however the public in general don't seem to ever believe the findings. I understand people's concerns with mast errection, usually they're not pretty, and with anything that's new and requires a number of sites to work, the public will automaticly presume that there is a health risk. For years the BBC have had main television transmission stations, you've all seen them about, they're about 1500Ft high and the whack power out at about 10 mega watts, that's 10 million watts. Your standard BTS equipment powers at about 10 watts directly in front of the antenna, and even less on the ground in front of it. Your mobile works at less than a watt. Now quoting powers to all may make no difference to your opinion, however, you at least have some sort of scale to make judgement on.

I do tend to find when meeting people on sites that at first they can be aggressive towards equipment located in certain areas and also towards myself, but over the years I have found that explaining the site, in terms of a comparison to things they take for granted, and as safe, helps them understand a little more about what they can see on the top of a shopping centre. I also tell them, if it was shown to be unsafe, I'd be the last person wanting to work anywhere near it, and I think that would go for anyone in the telco industry, honestly, I'm not that stupid!

I think one thing also needs to be mentioned regarding radio transmission, or any RF transmission for that matter, be it, TV, microwave, local radio, CB etc. They are all non-ionising forms of emmission. That means that they do not have the power to break bonds between cells within the body to cause a mutation, which in turn can cause cancer. That is fact. The only thing that RF has the power to do is heat, nothing else. And amazingly, the body has developed means to combat overheating, it's called sweating.

I think on the behalf of the governing bodies they need to make more of an effort to remove the myth behind the technologies we use today. In fact, 3G code spreading technology has been used since the 60's by the Army... I wonder if more people knew that these things had been around for nigh on 50 years they'd be more accepting?

[fat jez]

I must admit, I've yet to meet or read about a single employee of any of the phone companies (or indeed any other RF-based industry) who has reported any problems as a result of working on BTS's. Given that their exposure is far higher than anybody elses I would have thought they'd be the first to show symptoms. After all, mobiles have been around a long time now.

Cheers,
Jez