|
January 2007, Vol. 17, No. 1
Table of Contents
• Are You Busy Selling Chiropractic or Correcting Subluxations
• BJ's House Needs Repairs • Another Look At Cell Phones
• Chiropractic R.I.P. • Colloca and CBP Nonprofit Study Wins Best Paper Award • Help Us Locate Allen Botnick • Letters to the Editor
• Michigan Chiropractic Society Sees Evidence of Growing Need For Chiropractic • Meeting With Success • A New Look At Mirror Image Exercise • Mourning The Loss Of Tony Keller • Past Present and Future In Chiropractic • Posture Study By UQTR Researchers and CBP® Published by JCO • PostureRay™, PosturePrint™ Helping Doctors Help Patients
• The Importance of A Clinically Relevant Presentation of Findings
• It's Pauls Opinion • Research Corner • Scoliosis: SpineCor Brace
• Triano and CCGPP's Will Give You Six Visits
• Clinical Indications for Videoflouroscopy
• Western States Chiropractic College Receives NIH Grant •
Back To Front Page
Another Look at Cell Phones
by Daniel J. Murphy, DC, FACO
Vice President of ICA
Dan Murphy graduated magna cum laude from Western States Chiropractic College in 1978, and has more than 20 years of practice experience. He received Diplomat status in Chiropractic Orthopedics in 1986. Since 1982, Dr. Murphy has served part-time as undergraduate faculty at Life Chiropractic College West, currently teaching classes to seniors in the management of spinal disorders.
Dr. Murphy is on the post-graduate faculty of several chiropractic colleges. His post-graduate continuing education classes include “Whiplash and Spinal Trauma” and “Pain Neurology.” Dr. Murphy is the coordinator of a year-long certification program in “Chiropractic Spinal Trauma,” now (2000) in its twelfth year of being offered. This year, the program is being offered through the International Chiropractors Association of California. He has taught more than 700 post-graduate continuing education seminars.
Dr. Murphy is a contributing author to the book Motor Vehicle Collision Injuries, published by Aspen, 1996; and to the book Pediatric Chiropractic, published by Williams & Wilkins, 1998. He writes a quarterly column in the Journal of Clinical Chiropractic.
In 1987, 1991 and 1995 Dr. Murphy received the Post-graduate Educator of the Year award, given by the International Chiropractic Association. In 1997, he received The Carl S. Cleveland, Jr., Educator of the Year award, given by the International Chiropractic Association of California.
Recently, a study published in the journal Neuroepidemiology1 concluded “mobile phone use is unrelated to the risk of neuronal cancers.” This message was quickly repeated by the lay media, including newspapers, magazines, radio and television. Studies that suggest that there are potential dangers with cell phone use are given much less media attention, if any.
I suggest that the 1985 book by Robert Becker, MD titled The Body Electric, Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life,2 the 1990 book by Robert Becker, MD titled Cross Currents, The Perils of Electropollution, The Promise of Electromedicine,3 and the 2000 book by James Oschman, PhD titled Energy Medicine, The Scientific Basis4 establish a credible basis for using caution when applying energy fields to human physiology. In fact, Becker’s 1990 text subtitle includes “The Perils of Electropollution.” These texts present compelling information indicating that small electrical currents have biological effects. These biological effects can be harmful, including adverse alteration of genetic expression, electrical nerve interference, and cancer.
In 2000, the Journal of the National Cancer Institute 5 published an article titled “Markers of DNA repair and susceptibility to cancer in humans: an epidemiologic review.” The authors summarized all of the published epidemiologic studies on DNA repair in human cancer through 1998. They note that the most sensitive biological marker for cancer susceptibility is “induced micronuclei.” A micronucleated cell is a cell that has a number of nuclei instead of only one.
Dr. George Carlo is a public health scientist, epidemiologist, and lawyer who was the chief research scientist investigating the safety of cellular phones for the cellular phone industry. In his 2001 book titled Cell Phones, Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, An Insider’s Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage,6 he makes the following points concerning the radiation plume from cellular phones:
(1) Interfere with cardiac pacemakers.
(2) Breakdown the blood-brain-barrier, which allows excitotoxins and other substances to adversely affect the brain more greatly.
(3) Cellular phone radiation creates cellular micronuclei, the biological marker for cancer susceptibility.
Dr. Carlo notes:
“The relationship between the presence of micronuclei and cancer is so strong that doctors from around the world are using tests for the presence of micronuclei to identify patients who are likely to develop cancer.”
“All tumors and all cancers are the result of genetic damage, and most often that damage includes the formation of micronuclei.”
Dr. Carlo is most concerned about the trend to market cellular phones to children. He presents evidence that the radiation from cellular phones penetrates younger skulls far more deeply than those of adults. The radiation penetration of the skulls for 10 year olds was more than half way through the brain. The radiation penetration of the skulls for five- year-olds was nearly complete through the brain.
Dr. Carlo also notes:
The skulls of young children are “the most vulnerable to the risks of radiation.”
“The radiation plume that emanates from a cell phone antenna penetrates much deeper into the heads of children than adults,” and these children are “more susceptible to genetic damage.”
“There is a definite risk that the radiation plume that emanates from a cell phone antenna can cause cancer and other health problems.”
“The best advice is to keep the antenna away from your body by using a phone with a headset or earpiece.”
“Headsets are the best option for mobile phone users to minimize exposure to wireless phone radiation.”
“Children under the age of ten should not use wireless devices of any type.”
Adding to the concerns expressed by Dr. Carlo, in 2003 an article published in the journal Environmental Health Perspective titled “Nerve cell damage in the mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones”7 notes the following:
1) The voluntary exposure of the brain to microwaves from hand-held mobile phones by one-fourth of the world’s population is the largest human biologic experiment ever.
2) In rats exposed to cell phones at levels common of human teenagers, there is significant leakage of protein and sugar through the blood-brain barrier, combined with damage to the neurons in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia.
3) There is a significant and clear dose-response to cell phone EMF exposure and neuronal damage. This means the longer the exposure the greater the damage.
4) Large molecules like albumin can pass through the blood-brain barrier after cell phone EMF exposure, as can many other smaller toxic molecules.
5) The damage caused by cell phone EMF exposure can be seen within hours of exposure.
6) Growing brains are more vulnerable to cell phone EMF exposure.
7) The neuronal damage documented in this study may not be immediately demonstrable in humans, but may later reduce the brain’s function, resulting in neuronal disease and accelerated brain aging.
8) After decades of cell phone use, a whole generation of users may suffer negative effects, perhaps as early as in middle age.
9) This study presents for the first time evidence for neuronal damage caused by nonthermal cell phone microwave exposure.
10) The color photographs in the original article clearly show “increased permeability of the blood-brain barrier,” which means that these brains showed significant bleeding.
Additional concerns regarding cell phone radiation were raised when an article was published in the journal Epidemiology in 2004,8 titled “Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma.” These authors note the following:
1) Radiofrequency exposure from mobile phones is concentrated to the tissue closest to the handset, which includes the auditory nerve, the brain, and the parotid gland.
2) Ten years after the start of mobile phone use, the increased risk for acoustic neuroma increased by 90 percent as compared to controls risk (range 90percent — 410percent).
3) When only looking at tumors on the same side of the head as the phone was normally used, the increased risk was 390 percent , with a range of 160percent —- 950percent.
4) Use of hands-free devices for mobile phones reduces the amount of exposure from the phone to the head, and these authors considered using a hands-free device to be “unexposed.”
In an article published in 2004 in the journal Archives of Environmental Health 9 titled “Cellular and cordless telephone use and the association with brain tumors in different age groups,” the authors found a significant association between use of both mobile and cordless telephone brain tumors, with some groups experiencing greater than 800 percent increased risk.
In another 2004 article in the Journal of Toxicology Environmental Health Critical Review10 titled “Mobile telephones and cancer—a review of epidemiological evidence,” concludes “there is evidence for enhanced cancer risk with increasing latency and duration of mobile phone use.”
Most recently, a long-term study published in the journal Environmental Research in 200611 titled “Case-control study of the association between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant brain tumors diagnosed during 2000-2003” notes the following:
1) This is the longest study to date on the malignant brain tumor risk from using wireless phones, both cell phones and cordless home phones.
2) This is not the first epidemiological study to find a significant association between the use of cellular telephones and brain tumors.
3) The risk of malignant brain tumors (primarily high-grade astrocytomas) increases with the longer the use of wireless phones.
4) The risk for all malignant brain tumors increased rather dramatically for those who used combinations of a cell phone and a walk-around cordless phone. (See chart below)
5) Analog cell phone use for more than 15 years increased the risk of malignant brain tumor to 510 percent with a range between 150 percent to 1,400 percent.
6) The incidence of malignant brain tumors found in this study is low because those that died of malignant brain tumors were not counted. They were only counted if they were still living.
7) For a variety of reasons, the microwave radiation dose was higher for cordless home phone users than for digital cellular phone users, making these devices even more dangerous.
As a consequence of these studies that present plausible evidence for health risk concerns as the result of long-term use of cell phones, a number of studies have recommended interim precautionary solutions until more is known. Some of these studies are listed below.
In an educational review article published in 200412 in the journal Occupational Environmental Medicine titled “Mobile phone use and cancer,” the author makes the following points:
1) “The continued success of mobile telecommunications producing a still growing population of users amounting to hundreds of millions of people worldwide has raised concerns about possible consequences on public health if mobile phones turn out to be less safe than previously assumed. In fact, never before in history has a device been used that exposes such a great proportion of the population to microwaves in the near-field and at comparatively high levels.”
2) “There is evidence from epidemiological and experimental studies that long term exposure to emissions from mobile phones may lead to a small to moderate increased risk of developing certain types of cancer.”
3) “While holding a mobile phone to the ear, the head is within the near field of the antenna.”
4) “Decades of exposure may pass by until conclusions can be drawn.”
5) “Epidemiological studies are often insufficient to assess dose-response relations.”
6) There are several biological effects that have been consistently observed in independent investigations which occurred below current exposure to low level EMFs:
A) Activation of heat-shock proteins.
B) Leakage of blood-brain barrier.
C) Increased frequency of micronuclei.
D) Alteration of calcium homoeostasis.
7) “Summarising [sic] the compiled evidence from epidemiological investigations, it can be stated that all studies that approached reasonable latencies found an increased risk [of cancer] associated with mobile phone use.”
8) “All positive studies found strong indications of an increase of risk [of cancer] with increased duration of use and an increase with longer latencies.”
9) “Mobile phones when operating close to the head of the user result in comparably high levels of exposure to microwaves in the near field. Never before in history have such high exposures occurred on a regular basis in such a great proportion of the population. Consequently there is concern that exposure may lead to long term adverse health effects and in particular to an increase in cancer incidence.”
10) “There is evidence from independent epidemiological studies pointing to a moderately increased cancer risk for subjects using a mobile phone for several years.”
11) “In the meantime some precautionary measures may be appropriate. Because epidemiological studies approaching meaningful latencies found evidence for an increased cancer risk and because there is corroborating evidence from at least one long term animal experiment and from other experimental in vitro and in vivo studies, the fundamental pessimism of environmental hygiene forces the recommendation of caution and introduction of protective measures that are easily implemented. Among these are discouraging use of mobile phones in children and adolescents, recommending head sets, advising on reduction of length of calls and number of calls, and encouraging manufacturers to design and market low emission phones (for example, with antennas transmitting away from the head).”
Another study published in 2005 in the journal Pediatrics,13 titled “The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields” makes the following points:
1) “Mobile phones are the dominant source of radiofrequency exposure for teens and preteens.”
2) In order to reduce cell phone radiation exposure and potential associated ill effects, these authors recommend that “precautionary measures be adopted at an individual level.”
3) “Regarding the long-term health effects of mobile-phone use, the paucity of data, particularly for children, suggests that low-cost precautionary measures are appropriate, especially because some of the exposures are close to guideline limits. Physicians could advise parents that their children’s radiofrequency exposure can be reduced by restricting the length of calls or by using hands-free devices to keep mobile phones away from the head and body.”
The above information establishes that the bottom line on cell phone safety is not known. The information presented suggests the following:
1) Any dangers associated with cell phone use are related to the closeness of the antenna to the human body.
2) The nervous system appears to be particularly susceptible to the dangers of cell phone radiation.
3) The potential dangers of cell phone use are greater with increased duration and frequency of cell phone use.
4) Cell phone radiation is more deleterious to children than to adults.
5) Head-sets and other hands-free devices protect the human body from adverse cell phone radiation.
It is important to know that recent publications14 are suggesting that wireless headset technology such as Bluetooth are “even worse” than using a standard cell phone in terms of brain microwave radiation.
Other promising protective technology includes devices, approved by the FCC, that have the ability to convert cell phone radiofrequency into “harmless bursts of energy.” These very small devices are literally stuck to your cell phone or walk-around-the-house cordless telephone, and they reduce radiation exposure by about 60 percent .
REFERENCES
1) Muscat JE, Hinsvark M, Malkin M. Mobile telephones and rates of brain cancer. Neuroepidemiology. 2006;27(1):55-6.
2) Becker RO and Selden G, The Body Electric, Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life, Quill, 1985.
3) Becker RO, Cross Currents, The Perils of Electropollution, The Promise of Electromedicine, Tarcer, 1990.
4) Oschman J, Energy Medicine, The Scientific Basis, Churchill Livingstone, 2000.
5) Berwick M, Vineis P, Markers of DNA repair and susceptibility to cancer in humans: an epidemiologic review, J Natl Cancer Inst 2000 Jun 7;92(11):874-897.
6) George Carlo, Cell Phones, Invisible Hazards in the Wireless Age, An Insider’s Alarming Discoveries About Cancer and Genetic Damage, Carroll & Graf, 2001.
7) Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR. Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environ Health Perspect. 2003 Jun;111(7):881-3.
8) Lönn, Stefan; Ahlbom, Anders; Hall, Per; Feychting, Maria. Mobile Phone Use and the Risk of Acoustic Neuroma. Epidemiology: Volume 15(6) November 2004, pp 653-659.
9) Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M, Hallquist A. Cellular and cordless telephone use and the association with brain tumors in different age groups. Arch Environ Health. 2004 Mar;59(3):132-7.
10) Kundi M, Mild K, Hardell L, Mattsson MO. Mobile telephones and cancer—a review of epidemiological evidence. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2004 Sep-Oct;7(5):351-84.
11) Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg and Kjell Hansson Mild. Case-control study of the association between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant brain tumors diagnosed during 2000-2003. Environmental ResearchVolume 100, Issue 2, February 2006, Pages 232-241.
12) Kundi M. Mobile phone use and cancer. Occup Environ Med. 2004 Jun;61(6):560-70, 487.
13) Leeka Kheifets, PhD, Michael Repacholi, PhD, Rick Saunders, PhD and Emilie van Deventer, PhD.The Sensitivity of Children to Electromagnetic Fields. PEDIATRICS Vol. 116 No. 2 August 2005, pp. e303-e313.
14) Headline News. Bluetooth Wireless Headsets Are Even Worse. April 11, 2006.
| 
