Radiation Exposure Due To Cellphones Injury Lawsuits. Are you a heavy cell phone user who has been diagnosed with brain cancer? The possibility that cell phones cause cancer, especially a type of brain tumor known as glioma, has been the subject of fierce debate. A major 10-year survey of cell phone use from 13 countries suggested a possible increased risk for glioma—a type of brain tumor—in heavy cell-phone users. Some experts fear that we may start seeing serious health consequences from cell phone use in the coming decades.
Types of cancer associated with cell phone use:
- Acoustic Neuroma
- Parotid Gland Tumor (PGT)
- Anaplastic Astrocytoma
Our lawyers are investigating the possibility that cell phone use causes cancer. If you believe you or someone you know developed a glioma, or other type of brain cancer because of cell phone use, we want to hear from you today. Our cell phone brain cancer lawyers are offering free legal consultations to anyone who believes they are suffering from brain cancer caused by cell phone use.
Evidence that Cell Phones Cause Cancer
Scientists and the federal government have been studying the effects of cell phone radiation for years and have established guidelines with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit the amount of exposure. Cell phones emit electromagnetic energy, specifically known as radio frequency modulated electromagnetic fields (RF-EMFs), and concerns have been raised that exposure to RF-EMFs via cell phones may cause cancer. Though studies are being done to see if there is a link between cell phone use and tumors of the brain and central nervous system, so far, findings have been inconclusive, though compelling.
In October 2009, it was revealed that the groundbreaking, $30 million Interphone investigation had found some evidence that cell phones cause cancer. The Interphone study was conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) , but was funded by the mobile phone industry.
The Interphone project conducted studies in 13 countries, interviewing tumor sufferers and people in good health to see whether their use of cell phones differed. Interviews were conducted with 12,800 people between 2000 and 2004. In October 2009, a preliminary analysis of the WHO study’s data found a “significantly increased risk” of some brain tumors “related to use of mobile phones for a period of 10 years or more.” These include Meningioma, Acoustic Neuroma, Malignant Parotid Gland Tumor (PGT), and Anaplastic Astrocytoma cancers. The population included in the Interphone study included 2,765 glioma, 2,425 meningioma, 1,121 acoustic neuroma, 109 malignant parotid gland tumor cases, and 7,658 controls.
Six of eight Interphone studies found some rise in the risk of glioma (the most common brain tumor), with one finding a 39 percent increase. Glioma is a broad category of brain and spinal cord tumors that come from glial cells. Exposure to radiation is the only risk factor for malignant gliomas. In the Interphone study, the heaviest cell phone users who reported using their phones on the same side of their heads had a 40 percent higher risk for gliomas. Given that the heaviest users in the study talked an average of 30 minutes per day on their mobile phones, a figure which is not heavy by today’s standards, the researchers recommended further study. They also suggested that more study was needed to assess the risk of glioma and other cancer in young people, who are among the most intensive cell phone users. Two of seven Interphone studies into acoustic neuoroma (a benign tumor of a nerve between the ear and brain) reported a higher risk after using mobile phone devices for 10 years. A Swedish report indicated that the figure was 3.9 times higher. An Israeli study found heavy users were about 50 percent more likely to suffer tumors of the parotid salivary gland.
The Interphone authors did say the study was not definitive, and was limited because the study depended on subjects’ memories to determine frequency of cell phone use. But the study’s lead, Dr. Elisabeth Cardis, said she backed new warnings for cell phones based on its findings. “In the absence of definitive results and in the light of a number of studies which, though limited, suggest a possible effect of radiofrequency radiation, precautions are important,” she said. Dr. Cardis said she would back the idea of restricting cell phone use among children, although she thought banning the devices entirely for kids was a bad idea.
In July 2008, the head of one of the top cancer centers in the U.S. warned his staff that cell phones could be dangerous to their health. Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, the director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Centers, issued an internal advisory memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff members advising them to take precautions to avoid the possible cancer risks associated with cell phone use. Herberman justified his drastic action by citing a “growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects, including cancer.” In making this recommendation, Dr. Herberman cited preliminary findings from the Interphone study.
“Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use,” Dr. Herberman wrote.
In February 2011, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published the first, and the most prominent, study to offer scientific evidence that cell phone use affects brain metabolism. The study, conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), was conducted between January 1 and December 31, 2009 and included 47 participants. The research revealed that 50 minutes of cell phone use was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism (a marker of brain activity) in the region closest to the phone antenna.
The researchers found that whole-brain metabolism did not differ based on whether the cell phone was on or off; however, there were significant regional effects. Metabolism in the brain region closest to the antenna (orbitofrontal cortex and temporal pole) was significantly higher (approximately 7 percent) when a cell phone was on than for when a cell phone was off. “Concern has been raised by the possibility that RF-EMFs emitted by cell phones may induce brain cancer. Results of this study provide evidence that acute cell phone exposure affects brain metabolic activity. However, these results provide no information as to their relevance regarding potential carcinogenic effects (or lack of such effects) from chronic cell phone use.” The researches added, “Further studies are needed to assess if these effects could have potential long-term harmful consequences,” the authors conclude.
In May 2015, a group of 190 independent scientists from 39 countries, called on the United Nations, the WHO, and national governments to develop stricter controls on cell phone radiation, according to Consumer Reports magazine. These scientists have written a total of more than 2,000 papers on the topic and pointed to growing research suggesting that the low levels of radiation from cell phones could have potentially cancer-causing effects.
Dr. David O. Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in New York and one of the authors of the recent letter to the U.N. and WHO wrote, “I think the overall evidence that wireless radiation might cause adverse health effects is now strong enough that it’s almost unjustifiable for government agencies and scientists not to be alerting the public to the potential hazards,” according to Consumer Reports magazine.
Other Health Risks
Radiofrequency (RF) waves heat up water molecules, which is how microwave ovens work. Scientists are looking at the possibility that heating of human tissue during cell phone use might damage cells. Recent laboratory studies suggest that exposure to cell phone radiation may have biological effects without raising body temperature. In 2011, researchers at the NIH showed that low-level radiation from an activated cell phone held close to a human head could change the way certain brain cells functioned, even without raising body temperature. The study did not prove that the effect on brain cells was dangerous, only that radiation from cell phones may have a direct effect on human tissue, Consumer Reports wrote.
RF waves from cell phones have also been shown to produce “stress” proteins in human cells, according to research from Martin Blank, Ph.D., of the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University and a signer of a letter to the WHO and the UN. A 2015 German study found that RF waves promoted the growth of brain tumors in mice, again at radiation levels supposedly too low to raise body temperature. As of 2015, the U.S. National Toxicology Program is running an animal study exposing rats and mice to low-dose radiation. Results of that study are expected in 2016.
Cell Phone Cancer Warning Legislation
Concerns over cell phone radiation and cancer have prompted calls for health warnings on the devices. In July 2010, the city of San Francisco, California enacted an ordinance requiring retailers to post the radiation levels of cells phones, the first such law in the nation. The ordinance, which was co-sponsored by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and which passed the city’s Board of Supervisors by a vote of 10-1, requires that stores post the specific absorption rates (SAR)—the levels at which radio frequencies penetrate body tissue of phones—near cell phones in at least 11-point type. According to The New York Times, SAR rates may vary from phone to phone, but all phones sold in the United States must have an SAR rate no greater than 1.6 watts per kilogram.
In March 2010, Andrea Boland, a Democratic State Representative in Maine, introduced a bill in the state legislature, dubbed the “Children’s Wireless Protection Act,” that would have required radiation warning labels on all cell phones. Boland’s proposed law would have required a color graphic of the brain of a child with the word “warning” in large, red lettering. The label would have read: “Warning, this device emits electromagnetic radiation, exposure to which may cause brain cancer. Users, especially children and pregnant women, should keep this device away from the head and body.” While the bill was co-sponsored by 13 other Maine state representatives and five senators, the bill failed in both houses of the state legislature. Boland re-introduced an amended bill in 2014 and it passed the Maine Senate with a 21-14 vote, but failed to receive the necessary votes in the Maine House of Representatives.