Swedish Review Strengthens Grounds for Concluding that Radiation from

Cellular and Cordless Phones is a Probable Human Carcinogen

 Commentary http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7022311516

Devra Lee Davis, PhD, MPH, President

Environmental Health Trust

P.O. Box 58

Teton Village, WY 83025


e-mail: ddavis@ehtrust.org


Santosh Kesari, MD, PhD, Professor and Chief

University of California San Diego

Division of Neuro-Oncology

Department of Neurosciences

University of California, San Diego School of Medicine

Email: skesari@ucsd.edu


Colin L. Soskolne, Professor

Department of Public Health Sciences

School of Public Health, University of Alberta

3-266 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy

11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9


Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra


e-mail: colin.soskolne@ualberta.ca


Anthony B. Miller, Professor Emeritus

Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto

Email: ab.miller@sympatico.ca


Yael Stein MD

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine

Hebrew University-Hadassah Medical Center, Jerusalem, Israel

Clinical Research Associate in Environmental and Social Epidemiology

WHO Collaborating Center for Capacity Building

Braun School of Public Health and Community Medicine

Hebrew University-Hadassah, Jerusalem, Israel

Email: yael.stein1@mail.huji.ac.il



With 5.9 billion devices in use, mobile phones constitute a new, ubiquitous and rapidly

growing exposure worldwide. Mobile phones are two-way microwave radios that also

emit low levels of electromagnetic radiation. Inconsistent results have been published on

potential risks of brain tumours tied with mobile phone use as a result of important

methodological differences in study design and statistical power. Some studies have

examined mobile phone users for periods of time that are too short to detect an

increased risk of brain cancer, while others have misclassified exposures by placing

those with exposures to microwave radiation from cordless phones in the control group,

or failing to attribute such exposures in the cases. In 2011, the World Health

Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) advised that

electromagnetic radiation from mobile phone and other wireless devices constitutes a

“possible human carcinogen,” 2B. Recent analyses not considered in the IARC review

that take into account these methodological shortcomings from a number of authors find

that brain tumour risk is significantly elevated for those who have used mobile phones

for at least a decade. Studies carried out in Sweden indicate that those who begin using

either cordless or mobile phones regularly before age 20 have greater than a 4-fold

increased risk of ipsilateral glioma. Given that treatment for a single case of brain cancer

can cost between $100,000 for radiation therapy alone and up to $1 million depending on

drug costs, resources to address this illness are already in short supply and not

universally available in either developing or developed countries. Significant additional

shortages in oncology services are expected at the current growth of cancer. No other

environmental carcinogen has produced evidence of an increased risk in just one

decade. Empirical data have shown a difference in the dielectric properties of tissues as

a function of age, mostly due to the higher water content in children’s tissues. High

resolution computerized models based on human imaging data suggest that children are

indeed more susceptible to the effects of EMF exposure at microwave frequencies. If the

increased brain cancer risk found in young users in these recent studies does apply at

the global level, the gap between supply and demand for oncology services will continue

to widen. Many nations, phone manufacturers, and expert groups, advise prevention in

light of these concerns by taking the simple precaution of “distance” to minimize

exposures to the brain and body. We note than brain cancer is the proverbial “tip of the

iceberg”; the rest of the body is also showing effects other than cancers.



Chronic disease epidemiologists studying the etiology of rare diseases

necessarily study people’s past reported or documented exposures over decades to

determine how exposure differed between those who succumbed to illness and those

who did not. In so doing, epidemiologists rely on a variety of tools having both strengths

and limitations.


Examining general time trends of disease and ages of diagnosis can yield hypotheses

about historical changes in underlying causal factors, but cannot be relied on to predict

future risks. For example, the relatively rapid growth in lung cancer in women in

industrial countries in the 1970s and 1980s provided a broad and long-predicted

indication of the impact of smoking. Similarly, reports in the 1980s of surges in rare

ailments such as Kaposi’s sarcoma in men under age 30 tied to HIV/AIDS, or rare

vaginal adenocarcinoma in pre-adolescent girls whose mothers had taken the hormone

Di-ethylstibestrol early in pregnancy, have provided important clues about avoidable

etiologic factors.


As a matter of public policy, societies around the world are paying the price now for

having ignored earlier warnings of public health experts about the need to curtail

tobacco, asbestos, vinyl chloride, DES, or to take steps to prevent HIV/AIDS

transmission. The costs for treating the ravaging diseases caused by these avoidable

environmental health threats have skyrocketed, while the estimated costs of strategies

to prevent them pale in comparison.


Swedish analysis confirms brain cancer risks from mobile phone radiation

An important new article by the Swedish group of investigators led by Hardell et al

(2012) 1 provides a valuable contribution to the epidemiological literature that makes the

case for creating preventive policies now to reduce harmful risks associated with mobile

(cellular) and cordless phones, and other forms of wireless radiation. On May 21, 2011,

a committee of 30 invited scientists from 15 different countries working on behalf of the

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization

reviewed key studies on the topic and characterized exposure to radiofrequency

radiation associated with mobile phone use as Group 2B carcinogen – i.e.

possibly carcinogenic to humans.2 This is the same category as the pesticide DDT,

gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals, and jet fuel—

compounds that are subject to serious regulation and control around the world today.


By reviewing key epidemiological studies, some of which have been published since the

IARC review, addressing methodological critiques of their own and other studies, and

reporting the results of a meta-analysis of their own and the IARC coordinated

Interphone study, Hardell et al provide new and compelling evidence for IARC to re-

evaluate its classification of “a possible carcinogen”, with a view to changing that

assessment of electromagnetic radiation from mobile phones, cordless phones, and

other wireless devices at least to a “probable human carcinogen,” i.e. Group 2A.


This important review concentrates on the data relating to long-term use of mobile and

cordless phones from the handful of case-control studies that have been conducted on

the association of mobile phone use with brain tumours, addresses arguments that have

questioned the validity of past studies, extended the period of follow-up from first

exposures, explains the limited nature of time-trend analyses of rare events such as

brain cancer, and provides a cogent analysis of the need for precautionary steps to be

taken at this time.


In their article, the Hardell group makes the controversies in this field of enquiry

accessible. Being a broad-based state-of-the-art and state-of-knowledge review, their

article could serve as an excellent teaching tool in epidemiology graduate programmes.

The thoroughness of their documented responses to critiques, includes re-analysis of

their own and other data sets and makes possible the rejection of alleged of bias in their

own studies’ selection / exclusion criteria. Further, the methodological comparisons

across the various studies over time, and the observation that, as the exposure period

increases, so too do the risk estimates, are compelling for public health action. Finally,

the way that the Group was able to integrate exposures both to cordless and mobile

phone or cellphone use constructively advances this field of investigation.


Age-adjusted population trends and cohort studies of brain cancer are of limited power.

As a general matter, population trends are of limited immediate value in evaluating a

rare disease like brain cancer that is known to have a long latency. The survivors of the

atomic bombs that fell at the end of World War II did not exhibit any increased rate of

malignant cancer of the brain until four decades later. This established a long latency

between exposure and the development of brain cancer and has important implications

regarding the evaluation of environmental factors. As an editorial commentary on the

release of the Interphone study noted “None of today’s established carcinogens,

including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first ten

years or so since first exposure. 3


Regarding cohort studies of rare events, as many have noted, the only study to

approximate a cohort design of brain cancer risk over time in a population—the Danish

Cohort Study– does not comport with required methods to do so.4 In the Danish study,

less than half a million registered mobile phone users were followed and the authors

concluded that there is no increased risk. In this study, no direct information on

cellphone use was available. Further, the rapidly changing nature of exposure to

microwave radiation from cellphones, cordless phones and other similar sources of

exposure was not considered. In addition, corporate users, people who would have

been the heaviest users, were included in the unexposed group. Corporate users

amounted to almost a quarter of a million people in the 1990s and are known to have

used these technologies four times more often than those in this study. Finally, updates

to this cohort also lost significant numbers of the original group to follow-up. 5 6 As a

result, it is impossible to take the reported study results of no increased risk at face

value, especially considering that a cellphone “user,” as defined by the Interphone

study, was anyone who made one call a week for 6 months.


Case-control studies are powerful for studying mobile phone radiation

In general, epidemiologists appreciate that, for the study of rare diseases, such as brain

cancer, the case-control design is far more powerful than a cohort study. In fact, all of

the few well-designed case-control studies of this issue have found significantly

increased risk after a decade of use, with higher risks occurring in those with highest

use. Thus, within Interphone Appendix II, those who used phones for 1,640 hours or

more had close to a doubled risk of glioma.


As a number of commentators and several of the principal investigators of the

Interphone studies have noted, the Interphone study results are limited in many ways.7 8

The Interphone study did not include information on exposure to cordless phones or

other wireless devices, did not include patients who began using these technologies

before age 20, and included no cases that occurred after 2005.9 10


As a result, the Interphone results likely underestimate current risks from mobile

phones, and cannot be relied on to shed light on the risks for those who began using

phones as children or teenagers. Adults and children now use cellphones for many

hours a day compared to only 2 to 2.5 hours a month at the time the Interphone study

was conducted.


Further, any study that categorises people who used cordless or portable phones

(which emit the same microwave radiation as cellphones) as ‘unexposed,’ increases the

chances of finding no effect when a real one may well be present. This is because the

study is comparing people who were actually ‘exposed’ with others who are considered

to have been unexposed, but were, in fact, also ‘exposed’ to radiofrequency fields.

Because the Nordic countries were early users of mobile phones, it was possible for the

Hardell group to conduct case-control studies on those who began using cellphones

and cordless phones before age 20. So far, they are the only group in the world that has

investigated an increased risk from long term usage that began in those under age 20.

Consistent with the increased sensitivity of the young to toxic agents, the highest risk of

tumours occurred for those who began using wireless phones as teenagers, or earlier,

with glioma risk increased fourfold (OR 4.3, 95% CI = 1.2-5.5), and acoustic neuroma

risk increased almost sevenfold (OR 6.8, 95% CI = 1.4-34) for ipsilateral use.


An especially important result of the latest Hardell analysis is the finding that patient

survival is reduced where mobile phone use began at younger ages. “When adjustment

was made for age, the cases with glioblastoma who had used wireless phones had an

elevated risk of shortened survival compared to unexposed cases in our study.” In

addition, “a poorer survival among children with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia exposed

to ELF-EMF has been reported…”1


Other findings are consistent with an increased risk for cancers of the blood or bone

marrow tied with mobile phone use. One study in Thailand found a 3-fold risk of

leukaemia from GSM cell phone use (OR 3.0, 95% CI: 1.4 –6.8) and more than a 4-fold

risk for any lymphoid leukaemia (OR 4.5, 95% CI: 1.3–15).11 Cooke et al. (2010) also reported increased Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia (ALL) and Acute Myelogenous

Lekeumia (AML) risks with >15 years since first use of mobile phones, respectively

OR=1.41 (CI=0.45-4.37) and OR=2.08 (CI=0.98-4.39, calculated p-value=0.051).12


Exposure misclassification biases toward the null hypothesis

A Swiss personal monitoring study found that mobile phone use currently accounts for

one-third of total exposures to wireless and microwave radiation, with routers and base

stations accounting for the rest.13 Misclassification of exposure is well known to bias

toward the null hypothesis, or to a finding of “no effect” when, in fact, an effect may well

be present. None of the studies carried out on cell phones thus far, including those of

Hardell, has taken into account these important other exposures, many of which have

changed quite recently and continue to rapidly expand.


Current standards rest on the assumption that permitted levels of microwave radiation

from mobile phones do not induce any measureable change in temperature or biological

effect. Several independent avenues of research have shown this assumption to be


One important study from Sloan Kettering scientist, David Gultekin, and Lothar Moellaer

from Cornell,14 found that currently used cellphones can produce hotspots in living cow

brain tissue. Using Positron Emission Tomography (PET), the Director of the National

Institute of Drug Abuse, Nora Volkow, reported that 50 minutes of use of a mobile

phone produces significant change in glucose metabolism in the area of the human

brain that absorbs the most radiation.15 Reviewing many other relevant studies on

EMF impacts on the brain, Corle et al., (2012), concluded:


“A variety of human, rodent and cell culture experimental studies though inconclusive,

do collectively suggest that mammalian brain tissue may be sensitive to cellphone

levels of EMF.” 16


Increased susceptibility in young people

The dielectric properties of tissues indicate how easily material can absorb microwave

radiation and determine the tissue’s response to an electromagnetic current. The

measured properties are the conductivity (s) – which is directly proportional to the SAR,

and the permittivity (e). Empirical data have shown a difference in the dielectric

properties of tissues as a function of age. These differences are mostly due to the

higher water content in children’s tissues, but they also reflect the physiological

development of an organism or tissue that involves structural and biochemical changes.

The results of studies on age effects showed that, while the dielectric properties of gray

matter do not change with age, other tissues such as white matter and spinal cord vary

significantly. More significant results were observed in the case of bone, skull and

marrow tissues.17 18 19 20

High resolution computerized models based on real human imaging data suggest that

the higher conductivity and higher permittivity in children’s brain tissues, together with

their thinner skulls and smaller heads, will lead to higher SARs in their brains from

microwave frequencies when compared to adults. Exposure to other body organs from

cellphones carried in the pockets is common. Effects on other body organs are also

documented as well as in utero effects on the fetus. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29


These and many other studies provide important evidence that biological effects from

mobile phone radiation occur with contemporary phones and thus strengthen the case

for expecting these devices to have impacts on health.


A letter to the U.S. Congress by the American Academy of Pediatrics, dated 12 December 2012 notes:

“Children are disproportionately affected by environmental exposures, including cell

phone radiation. The differences in bone density and the amount of fluid in a child’s

brain compared to an adult’s brain could allow children to absorb greater quantities of

RF energy deeper into their brains than adults. It is essential that any new standards for

cell phones or other wireless devices be based on protecting the youngest and most

vulnerable populations to ensure they are safeguarded through their lifetimes.”


Shortage in oncology services

Projected supply for oncology services in the U.S. is not expected to meet demand in

the near future and is already inadequate. In 2007 a study for the American Society of

Clinical Oncology (ASCO, 2007) estimated that “supply is projected to only increase

20% between now and 2020, and capacity for oncologist visits is projected to rise even

less at 14%. Demand for oncologist services is projected to grow by 48% during that

same time.” 30 The projections were based on current cancer rates and delivery patterns

applied to the expected U.S. population in 2020. Unless there is a dramatic change in

cancer care treatment or delivery between now and 2020, the nation is expected to face

an acute shortage of oncologists.” Thus, the number of available oncologists is about

half those projected to be needed by 2020 if current rates of cancer continue



If the elevated risks found in studies of young cellphone users were to occur globally,

then rates of glioma could rise significantly from about 3 to 12 per 100,000. In addition

to the direct medical costs involved, there will be substantial indirect costs for society,

including loss of productivity of those at the peak of their professional lives and

incalculable family impacts. This could create a devastating impact on the capacity to

deliver neuro-oncology services.


Policy implications and Research Priorities

A new question that these findings raise is profound: could mobile phone and cordless

phone radiation not only cause brain cancers, but could continued use shorten the lives

of those who develop these and other diseases? This prospect raised by the analysis of Hardell et al (2013) should be sufficiently concerning to prompt health authorities

around the world to issue advice, especially to their incident cancer patients, to reduce

exposures from mobile and cordless phones, while further work continues to explore

this matter.


Other important research questions that should be addressed include the following:

Could exposures to mobile phone radiation play a role in the unusual rise in autism?

Does the increase in deep vein thrombosis as the leading cause of death in pregnancy

have any connection with the growing use of mobile phones during pregnancy? Could

blood clots such as that developed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton after a fall be

more frequent in those who are also heavy cellphone users? Are tinnitus and other

hearing problems associated with longer-term mobile phone use?


About half of the world’s mobile phone users are under age 30 today and live in

developing countries. If the risks reported by Hardell et al were to occur in that

population, the capacity to provide health care would be overwhelmed. This year, the

Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS) estimates that in the U.S.

about 10,000 people will develop glioma. CBTRUS reports that gliomas constitute 1 of

every 3 brain tumours and 4 out of every 5 malignant brain tumours. If current young

users of mobile phones face such heavy risks, then several thousand new cases will

develop in the U.S. annually. Oncology surgeons, neuro-oncologists, drugs and nurses

are already in short supply in many regions of both the developed and developing world.

Prognosis for the disease has not changed appreciably, with five-year survival rates

being about 5% (CBTRUS, 2012).31


Current standards for exposure to radiofrequency fields were set more than fifteen

years ago resting on the belief that levels of microwave radiation from mobile phones

cannot induce any measureable change in temperature or other biological effect.

Recent analyses show that this assumption is no longer tenable. The General

Accountability Office (GAO) recently advised the U.S. Congress that standards for

mobile phones should be reassessed (GAO, 2012), noting that no new proposals had

been advanced in the past two decades, a period during which both the users and their

uses have changed dramatically.


In considering the overall findings on increased risk of brain cancer and mobile phone

and other wireless radiation in its 2011 evaluation, IARC Director, Christopher Wild,

offered some simple recommendations that have since been widely shared:


“Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings it

is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of

mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take

pragmatic measures to reduce exposure, such as hands-free devices or texting.” 32


Liability, simple precautions, and product warnings

Over the past decade, this advice about reducing exposures through simple precautions

has been echoed by a growing number of health professionals and regulatory bodies around the world, including the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, the

Health Safety Authority of Britain, the Israeli Health Ministry, the Indian government’s

Department of Telecom, the Austrian Medical Society, the American Academy of

Pediatrics, Environmental Health Trust, Environmental Working Group, and many


With 5.9 billion phones in use worldwide, mobile phones constitute a new, ubiquitous

and rapidly growing environmental exposure. In 2011, following publication of the

Interphone study results, two of the Interphone study researchers including lead author

Cardis published an editorial on the potential public health implications of possible brain

tumour risk in mobile phone studies.33 The authors expressed their concern that small

increases in risk, especially those found in ipsilateral localized exposure and in long

term users are important when considering the huge numbers of people exposed:


“…The findings in several studies of an increased risk for glioma among the highest

users on the side of the head where the phone was used and, in Interphone, in the

temporal lobe are therefore important. These are the findings that would be expected if

there was a risk, as these are the a priori relevant exposure variables.”


“Even a small risk at the individual level could eventually result in a considerable

number of tumours and become an important public health issue. Simple and low-cost

measures, such as the use of text messages, hands-free kits, and/or the loud-speaker

mode of the phone could substantially reduce exposure to the brain from mobile



Saracci and Samet’s commentary (2010), while less unequivocal, supports this view.3

Since the risk of greatest interest is lifelong use, possibly beginning in childhood—a

pattern of exposure that cannot yet be studied, the authors agree that a precautionary

approach to the extent and manner of use of mobile phones may find some support in

the elevated risks noted in subjects with the highest exposures.


There are a number of experts who contend that the lack of an overall positive trend in

gliomas provides evidence that mobile phone use does not cause brain tumours.34 35 36

In addition, some assert that there is no exposure-response relationship, either in terms

of the amount of mobile phone use or by localization of the brain tumour, and that this

argues against a causal association.37 But, reviews conducted by groups of

researchers from different countries, as well as published policy resolutions and

advisories from national authorities such as the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety

Authority and the Austrian Medical Society, reach much different conclusions and fully

support the need for a precautionary approach regarding risk.


The grounds for taking precautionary steps rest on a growing body of evidence.

Abdus-salam et al., 2008: “the need for caution is emphasized as it may take up to four

decades for carcinogenesis to become fully apparent.” 38


Myung et al., 2009: “The current study found that there is possible evidence linking

mobile phone use to an increased risk of tumors from a meta-analysis of low-biased

case-control studies.” 39


Levis et al., 2011: “Our analysis of the literature studies and of the results from meta-

analyses of the significant data alone shows an almost doubling of the risk of head

tumours induced by long-term mobile phone use or latency.” 40


Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs of the

Council of Europe (2011): “[For mobile phones] One must respect the precautionary

principle and revise the current threshold values; waiting for high levels of scientific and

clinical proof can lead to very high health and economic costs, as was the case in the

past with asbestos, leaded petrol and tobacco.” 41


The Russian National Committee On Nonionizing Radiation Protection (RNCNIRP),

2011: “Urgent measures must be taken because of the inability of children to recognize

the harm from the mobile phone use and that a mobile phone itself can be considered

as an uncontrolled source of harmful exposure” 42


As a sign of the times, manufacturers and businesses are developing ways to promote

reductions in radiation as well. One of the fastest growing mobile apps is called

tawkon—which provides an algorithm indicating the potential danger from signal

strength to those using phones. Globally, sales of cases and headsets tested and

confirmed to reduce radiation have grown, indicating market demand for such devices.


Phone manufacturers are also issuing advice on reducing exposure, as these notices

from Apple and Samsung indicate:

“To reduce exposure to RF energy, use a hands-free option, such as the built-in

speakerphone, the supplied headphones, or other similar accessories. Carry iPhone at

least 10 mm away from your body to ensure exposure levels remain at or below the as-

tested levels. Cases with metal parts may change the RF performance of the device,

including its compliance with RF exposure guidelines, in a manner that has not been

testified or certified.”


What is missing altogether in the above statement is this previously published advice

from Apple that these phones, when carried in the pocket, can exceed the FCC

exposure guidelines.



Such advice about safer use no longer appears in a printed pamphlet with iPhones, but

can be found on the phones by clicking settings/general/about/legal/RFexposure


Other manufacturers also include more safety advice. Samsung is the number one

producer of cellphones in the world today. Their new Convoy 2 phone comes with this


“Your mobile device is not a toy. Do not allow children to play with it because they

could hurt themselves and others, damage the device, or make calls that increase your

mobile device bill.”

“Keep the mobile device and all its parts and accessories out of the reach of small



The challenge to public health is how to promote sensible policies now. The focus on

brain cancer may be the tip of the iceberg in relation to a host of other serious

widespread health, behavioural and social effects from such radiation. Downloadable

resources that draw upon advisories developed by experts in many nations are

available in several languages at www.ehtrust.org.


Practical Advice for the Public

When it comes to using electronic devices, remember: Distance is your friend.

Don’t hold a cellphone directly up to your head. Use a headset or speakerphone  when using the device, or a non-metal case that has been independently tested to  reduce radiation up to 90%.

Pregnant women should keep cellphones away from their abdomen and men who wish to become fathers should not keep these phones on while in their pocket.

Don’t allow children to play with or use your cellphone. Older children should use a headset or speakerphone when talking on a cellphone.

Do not text and drive and only use specially adapted antennas when using mobile phones in cars to avoid absorbing maximum power as the phone moves from one cell system to another. When buying a new car, pay attention that the car has a built-in antenna that reduces your direct exposure.

Turn off your wireless router at night to minimize exposure to radiation.

Eat green vegetables and get a good night’s sleep in a dark room to enhance natural repair of DNA that may have been damaged by radiation.

1 Hardell L, Carlberg M, Mild KH. Use of mobile phones and cordless phones is associated with increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma. Pathophysiology. (2012), in press.

2 IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 102, Non-Ionizing radiation, Part II: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields [includes mobile phones], IARC Press (2011),Lyon, France

3 R. Saracci, J. Samet. Commentary: Call me on my mobile phone … or better not?—a look at the INTERPHONE study results. International Journal of Epidemiology 39 (2010) 695–698.

4 C. Johansen, J.D. Jr. Boice, J. McLaughlin, J. Olsen, Cellular telephones and cancer–a nationwide cohort study in Denmark, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93 (2001) 203-207

5 J. Schüz, R. Jacobsen, J.H. Olsen, J.D Jr. Boice, J.K. McLaughlin, C. Johansen, Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort, Journal of the National Cancer Institute 98 (2006)1707-1713.

6 P. Frei, A. Harbo Poulsen, C. Johansen, JH. Olsen, M. Steding-Jessen, J. Schüz, Use of mobile phones and risk of brain tumours: update of Danish cohort study, British Medical Journal 343 (2011) d6387.

7 L.L. Morgan, E. Barris, J. Newton, E. O’Connor, A. Philips, G. Philips, C. Rees, B. Stein. Cellphones and Brain Tumors: 15 Reasons for Concern. Science, Spin and the Truth Behind Interphone (2009), online publication: 1 – 44

8 M. Kundi. The controversy about a possible relationship between mobile phone use and cancer. Cien Saude Colet. Aug;15(5) (2010) 2415-30.

9 Interphone Study Group, Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study, International Journal of Epidemiology 39 (2010) 675-694.

10 E. Cardis, B.K. Armstrong, J.D. Bowman, G.G. Giles, M. Hours, D. Krewski, et al, Risk of brain tumours in relation to estimated RF dose from mobile phones: results from five Interphone countries, Occupational and Environmental Medicine 68 (2011) 631-640.

11 D.W. Kaufman, T.E. Anderson, S. Issaragrisil, Risk factors for leukemia in Thailand. Ann Hematol 88(11) (2009) 1079–1088.

12 R. Cooke, S. Laing, A.J. Swerdlow. A case–control study of risk of leukaemia in relation to mobile phone use. Brit. J. Cancer 103 (2010) 1729–1735.

13 W. Joseph, P. Frei, M. Roösli, G. Thuróczy, P. Gajsek, T. Trcek, J. Bolte, G. Vermeeren, E. Mohler, P. Juhász, V. Finta, L. Martens. Comparison of personal radio frequency electromagnetic field exposure in different urban areas across Europe. Environmental Research 110(7) (2010) 658-663

14 D.H. Gultekin, L. Moeller. NMR imaging of cell phone radiation absorption in brain tissue. Physical Sciences – Physics – Biological Sciences – Biophysics and Computational Biology: PNAS; (2013), published ahead of print December 17, (2012)

15 N.D Volkow, D. Tomasi, G. Wang, et al. Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism. JAMA. 305(8) (2011) 808-813

16 C. Corle, M. Makale, S. Kesari. Cell phones and glioma risk: a review of the evidence. J Neurooncol. 106(1) (2012) 1-13

17 A. Peyman, A.A. Rezazadeh, C. Gabriel. Changes in the dielectric properties of rat tissue as a function of age at microwave frequencies. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 46(6) (2001) 1617–1629

18 A. Peyman, S.J. Holden, S. Watts, R. Perrott, C. Gabriel. Dielectric properties of porcine cerebrospinal tissues at microwave frequencies: in vivo, in vitro and systematic variation with age. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 52(8) (2007) 2229–2245

19 A. Peyman, C. Gabriel, E.H. Grant, G. Vermeeren, L. Martens. Variation of the dielectric properties of tissues with age: the effect on the values of SAR in children when exposed to walkie-talkie devices. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 54(2) (2009) 227–241

20 A. Peyman, C. Gabriel, H.R. Benedickter, J. Fröhlich. Dielectric properties of human placenta, umbilical cord and amniotic fluid. Phys Med Biol. 7 (2011) 56(7):N93-8

21 O.P. Gandhi, G. Lazzi, C.M. Furse. Electromagnetic Absorption in the Human Head and Neck for Mobile Telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz. IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech. 44 (1996) 1884–1897

22 O.P. Gandhi, G. Kang. Some present problems and a proposed experimental phantom for SAR compliance testing of cellular telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz. Phys. Med. Biol. 47 (2002) 1501

23 G. Kang, O.P. Gandhi. SARs for pocket-mounted mobile telephones at 835 and 1900 MHz. Phys Med Biol. 47(23) (2002) 4301-13

24 S. Koulouridis, M. Christopoulou, K.S. Nikita. Comparative Assessment of Power Absorption in Heads of Adults and Children Exposed to the Radiation of Cellular Phones at 1800 MHz. The Environmentalist, 25 (2005) 223–232

25 A.A. de Salles, G. Bulla, C.E. Rodriguez. Electromagnetic absorption in the head of adults and children due to mobile phone operation close to the head. Electromagn Biol Med. 25(4) (2006) 349-60

26 A. Christ, M.C. Gosselin, M. Christopoulou, S. Kühn, N. Kuster. Age-dependent tissue-specific exposure of cell phone users. Phys Med Biol. 55(7) (2010) 1767-83

27 S. Akimoto, S. Kikuchi, T. Nagaoka, K. Saito, S. Watanabe, M. Takahashi, K. Ito, Evaluation of Specific Absorption Rate for a Fetus by Portable Radio Terminal Close to the Abdomen of a Pregnant Woman. IEEE Transactions On Microwave Theory And Techniques, 58(12) (2010)

28 A. Tomruk, G. Guler, B. Tandogan, E. Ozgur, N.N. Ulusu, N. Seyhan. Effects of Intrauterine and Extrauterine Exposure to 1800 MHz GSM-Like Radiofrequency Radiation on Liver Regulatory Enzymes Activities in Infant Female Rabbits. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 44, (2010)

29 O.P. Gandhi , L.L. Morgan, A.A. de Salles, Y.Y Han, R.B. Herberman, D.L. Davis. Exposure limits: the underestimation of absorbed cell phone radiation, especially in children. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine (2011) 1–18

30 ASCO, Forecasting the Supply of and Demand for Oncologists: A Report to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) from the AAMC Center for Workforce Studies Center for Workforce Studies (2007)

31 T.A. Dolecek, J.M. Propp, N.E. Stroup, C. Kutchko. CBTRUS Statistical Report: Primary Brain and Central Nervous System Tumors Diagnosed in the United States in 2005–2009 Neuro Oncol 14(suppl 5) (2012) v1-v49

32 IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields As Possibly Carcinogenic To Humans. Press release no. 208. IARC, WHO. 31 May, 2011

33 E. Cardis, S. Sadetzki. Indications of possible brain-tumour risk in mobile-phone studies: should we be concerned? Occup Environ Med. 68(3) (2011) 169-71

34 A.J. Swerdlow, M. Feychting, A.C. Green, L.K. Kheifets, D.A. Savitz, International Commission for Non-

Ionizing Radiation Protection Standing Committee on Epidemiology. Mobile phones, brain tumors, and

the interphone study: where are we now? Environ Health Perspect. 119(11) (2011) 1534-8.

35 I. Deltour, A. Auvinen, M. Feychting, C. Johansen, L. Klaeboe, R. Sankila, J. Schüz. Mobile phone use and incidence of glioma in the Nordic countries 1979-2008: consistency check. Epidemiology. 23(2)

36 F. de Vocht, I. Burstyn, J.W. Cherrie. Time trends (1998-2007) in brain cancer incidence rates in relation to mobile phone use in England. Bioelectromagnetics. 32(5) (2011) 334-9

37 D. Aydin, M. Feychting, J. Schüz, T. Tynes, T.V. Andersen, L.S. Schmidt, A.H. Poulsen, C. Johansen, M. Prochazka, B. Lannering, L. Klæboe, T. Eggen, D. Jenni, M. Grotzer, N. Von der Weid, C.

E. Kuehni, M. Röösli. Mobile phone use and brain tumors in children and adolescents: a multicenter case- control study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 103(16) (2011)1264-76

38 A. Abdus-salam, T. Elumelu, A. Adenipekun. Mobile phone radiation and the risk of cancer; a review. Afr J Med Med Sci. 37(2) (2008) 107-18.

39 S.K. Myung, W. Ju, D.D. McDonnell, Y.J. Lee, G. Kazinets, C.T. Cheng, J.M. Moskowitz. Mobile Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 27(33) (2009) 5565

40 A.G. Levis, N. Minicuci, P. Ricci, V. Gennaro, S. Garbisa. Mobile phones and head tumours. The discrepancies in cause-effect relationships in the epidemiological studies – how do they arise? Environ Health. (2011) 10:59

41 Committee on the Environment, Agriculture and Local and Regional Affairs. The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment. Parliamentary assembly. Council of Europe. 6 May 2011. http://www.scribd.com/doc/55253905/The-Potential-Dangers-of-Electromagnetic-Fields-and-their-Effect-on-the-Environment

42.Russian National Committee On Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection. Resolution: Electromagnetic fields from mobile phones: health effect on children and teenagers. April 2011. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/pdfs/20110514-rncnirp_resolution.pdf

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *