Medicine to Move You

Medicine to Move You


Cell Phones Linked to Brain Tumors

Cell phones are here to stay and we knew it the moment we laid hands on our first mobile communication superstar back in the early 1990s.  Technology has come a long way from the remote control sized cell phone and getting in touch with someone never seemed so easy.  But with everything that society considers progress, there’s always a part of me wondering…’What is the price our bodies are paying for this convenience?’  There’s always a catch, right?   Well, lend me your ears for this recent research article.

According to the Center on Media and Child Health, 60 percent of children ages 10 to 14 use cell phones. Amongst high school students in the 15 to 18 age group, 85 percent pack cell phones and they aren’t afraid to use them.   And in case your second grader asks you for a cell phone, don’t be surprised when she reports that 22  percent of grade schoolers 9 and younger own cell phones as well.

Cell phones use radio frequency which release a small amount of electromagnetic radiation with every use.  According to calculations published in the July 2008 issue of “Physics in Medicine and Biology” by Joe Wiart’s research group at France Telecom, “The brains of young children absorb twice as much radio frequency energy from a cell phone as those of adults.”  Hmmm.  The obvious question focused on the impact of cell phone use on our beloved kids’ brains.

So, it was a relief when a recent study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011;103:1264-1276), reported that children and adolescents who use cell phones are NOT at an increased risk for brain tumors.  But don’t sigh yet.  Here’s where the story gets a little more soap opera-esque.   Several experts in the field of environmental medicine are disputing these findings.  L. Lloyd Morgan, BSc, senior research fellow at the Environmental Health Trust and coauthors Ronald Herberman, MD, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and the UPMC Cancer Center, in Pennsylvania, and Debra Davis, PhD, MPH, president of Environmental Health Trust, note that the study’s results are flawed and mislead the public. They explain that these errors should have been picked up during the peer-review process and by the journal.  Why?  Because the results and conclusion sections of the paper actually contradict the reported results.  In English, there were errors in the science experiment process; so, the results don’t really count.  They stated that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute should have picked these errors up before publishing this article and giving a false sense of security to all of us.

This next point may not be a surprise to you conspiracy theorists but, several cell phone companies provided funding for this study.  Some of the study’s authors are known to be linked to the industry and to other research that supports the interests of the industry.  Another expert, Joel Moskowitz, PhD, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, also stated that “the results actually verify higher tumor risks for children but the findings are downplayed. They dismiss any evidence or prior evidence of increased risk and harm, and then the media plays it out as either being not conclusive evidence or no evidence.”

Dr. Davis also emphasized that aside from brain tumors, other studies have linked cell phones to serious health risks in children, including learning problems, autism, behavioral impacts, insomnia, attention disorders, and a broad array of disturbances to the developing nervous system.  So, even though there are no studies that definitively prove that cell phones cause health problems, there is enough evidence building that we might proceed with caution the next time we put one to our ears.  Knowing that it can take nearly 10 years of daily electromagnetic radiation (EMR) exposure to cause a brain tumor and that we get EMR from many other modern day ‘appliances’ in our lives, are we just sitting ducks?  About a dozen countries have taken precautionary steps, so it would “not be radical for the United States government to do so as well,” Dr. Davis said. No one is suggesting that we give up cell phones, “but there are ways to reduce the risk.”

Call me ‘old school’ but by their increasing use of cell phones and texting, our children are slowly losing the concept of hanging out, chatting on the front stoop or veranda, taking it easy and taking it all in… slowly, naturally and healthfully.  I bet the full body benefits of two people chatting face-to-face, eye-to eye, heart-to-heart and exchanging robust laughter over shared experiences does so much more for the mind, body and spirit than those 2 same people will ever be able to capture sending a LOL text… and with less electromagnetic radiation!

Quick tip:  Consider using earbuds in order to get the cell phone’s EMR further away from your brain and ears.  It can reduce your risks, free up your hands, and help prevent neck strain.  Of course, think about any ways you can reduce excessive cell phone use and get back to sharing your positive energy… up close and personal!



Advertisement
Comments read comments(5)
post a comment
G

posted September 12, 2011 at 11:09 am


After many years, I finally got a Cell phone for emergency use on trips. I am not a ‘phone-talker’ In fact I hate talking on the phone, and I never use it just to ‘gab’.

But I have noticed over the years that hard core cell phone users (you know, while driving, and walking across streets, shopping)do appear to lose many points of IQ at least temporarily. Also, their social skills are reduced down to sub-human as they seem to lose awareness of their surroundings and any sense that they are loud, obnoxious, block passageways as they meaner back and forth while flailing their free hand.

So worse than the potential for disease, is the absolute stupidity and rudeness that these things ate in otherwise normal people.



report abuse
 

JPK

posted September 12, 2011 at 11:19 am


1. The headline overstates the case. Dr Saxena has used her medical title to author an article that whlie legally defensible is an opinion piece.

2. Dr Davis has found, as has Dr Saxena, that the headline “cellphones cause cancer” attracts more book sales (Davis) and blog hits (Saxena) than “cellphones might cause cancer but we don’t really know because the interaction of technology, detection, cell phone use, and cancer are all really complicated.”

3. “Linked” is the word that is code for “our scientists don’t really know (or are split), and our lawyers won’t let us print. Publishing ambiguous fear posing as “information” is on par with “prove evolution.”

Either way, BeliefNet should stay away from science because faith and science don’t mix very well…at least since Galileo’s time! If MS. Saxena has something to say about cellphones or God, that’s fine…but what in her medical or scientific background gives her a position of authority on this topic, especially when the debate on the scientific merits has been going on since the early 1990’s?



report abuse
 

Nick Santoro

posted September 12, 2011 at 1:17 pm


today erveryone is a lone ranger……………wake up to real talk with good friends not facebook but face to face…………to the young a whole new world will awaken you……….



report abuse
 

kenneth

posted September 17, 2011 at 2:08 pm


This is yet another area where our ability to field technology far outstrips our ability to understand its impact. I suspect the issue is more complex than asking “do cell phones cause cancer”? We ought to be starting from square one to understand the basic science of how EMFs affect cell function and communication.

The few studies I have seen that took this approach seem to show that this type of energy causes definite, yet subtle, changes in metabolism of brain tissue near the cell phone. So what are the implications of that? For most people most of the time, probably nothing. For some people in a context of heavy exposure, maybe that boost in cell activity is just a bit more than the mutation-editing and apoptosis machinery can handle, and a tumor which otherwise would have been killed in the cradle instead blossoms. Maybe that risk is only tangible for certain lengths of exposure at certain ages and with certain genetics.

Simply doing the traditional sorts of “yes/no” carcinogen screen isn’t going to work in this instance. The fact that we’re not seeing gross rises in cancer rates as we did with, say radium factory workers or benzene is not enough to conclude that cell phone energy exposure is absolutely safe. Unless and until we see some proper and independent large scale studies, prudence is the best course. Use earbuds, and if all else fails, re-learn how to engage people face to face!



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Medicine To Move You. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Sacred Medicine Inspiration Report Happy Reading!!!

posted 8:58:01am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

Diabetes Linked to Alzheimer's Disease Risk
Alzheimer's…the word alone is enough to scare most people over 50.  Whether it be because we know someone or some family that has been effected by this condition or whether we fear it for ourselves, Alzheimer's disease (AD) has become a popular concern for my older patients.  By the way, many of

posted 6:56:29am Sep. 26, 2011 | read full post »

A Bone-afied Plan for Managing Osteoporosis
Surprise, surprise.  In the news this last week, another class of pharmaceutical medications is undergoing scrutiny by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for safety concerns.  Known as  ‘bisphosphonates’, this class include drugs such as Fosamax (alendronate), Boniva, Actonel and Reclast

posted 4:29:52pm Sep. 19, 2011 | read full post »

How to Rationalize Your Chocolate
Death by chocolate?  Well, maybe not so.  You may have heard that there is a saving grace in that luxurious, seemingly sinful, guilty pleasure called chocolate.  Well, here's the latest scoop but I've kept it kiddie size. Chocolate goodness starts as a sparkle in a cacao tree's eye.  Cacao be

posted 5:09:08pm Aug. 29, 2011 | read full post »

Natural Ways to Prevent Breast Cancer
Some of the greatest pioneers in medicine work to find ways to highlight lifestyle-based solutions for the most devastating diseases.  Of course, nothing strikes fear into the heart and, literally, the chests of women than the diagnosis of breast cancer.  Luckily for us, these trendsetting docs ha

posted 10:59:19pm Aug. 22, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.