Should We Worry?

[Tony]

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-rxcell14oct14,0,5506529.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines ...full article

People who have used cell phones for at least 10 years might have an increased risk of developing a rare brain tumor, according to a study published Wednesday in the international journal Epidemiology.

A team of researchers at Institute of Environmental Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, found almost a fourfold increase of the tumors, known as acoustic neuromas, on the side of the head where the phone was most often held.



Is this cause for alarm?

[richardm]

I dunno; this bit sounds a bit funny:


Researchers said they found no association between the tumors and the amount of use measured in hours or cumulative number of calls, but rather on the length of time those in the study had been regular users of cell phones. Regular use was defined as an average of at least once a week during six months or more.


Eh? The implication is that if you use a phone once a week for a short call the deadly radiation has the same effect as if you use it twenty times every day for ten years. Doesn't seem to make sense to me, but then I'm not a scientist...

I think it's a plot by the phone companies: "You're gonna die anyway, so you might as well make long calls" :D

[Rolfe]

I've just had a look at the article, and it doesn't even mention Roger Coghill (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38678)!

I thought one of the criteria for deducing a causal link, according to Richard Doll, was a dose/response relationship?

Rolfe.

[JamesM]

The BBC version (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3742120.stm) of the story calls it a somewhat less alarming 'ear tumour'. Also it notes that
It affects one in 100,000 people.
So mobile phone use increases that 0.001% risk to 0.004%. Hmm.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by JamesM
The BBC version (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3742120.stm) of the story calls it a somewhat less alarming 'ear tumour'.

So mobile phone use increases that 0.001% risk to 0.004%. Hmm. It's still not a nice thing to get (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870634105#post1870634105).

That's a fourfold increase nevertheless, so if it's real it needs to be investigated. The lack of any dose-response relationship makes the causal connection doubtful, however. I wonder if the study was really as well-designed as it might have been.

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by JamesM
The BBC version (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3742120.stm) of the story calls it a somewhat less alarming 'ear tumour'. Also it notes that

So mobile phone use increases that 0.001% risk to 0.004%. Hmm.

1 in 100,000 is the background rate? And just how large was this study that claims to have measured a four-fold increase? Never mind, I don't even want to read either the news article or the study. Something already smells very funny.

[Dr. Imago]

[Pet Peeve]

These should more appropriately be called acoustic Schwannomas, not neuromas. It is a non-malignant tumor of the Schwann cells, not the neuron body.

[/Pet Peeve]

I think what we have here is yet another example, and area rife with the potential for great misrepresentation and misunderstanding, of how association and causation is confused. Before I'd be willing to entertain cellphones as a possible causative agent in this condition, someone would have to provide a reasonably good testible and falsifiable theory about how non-ionizing radiation causes neoplasia. A controlled study with animals would suffice. And, yes, the whole dose/response thing leaves me feeling even cooler about this study, and more likely points towards a confounding association rather than any real causation. But, the jury is admittedly still out. And, unless we see a huge bubble in acoustic Schwannomas in the next 10-20 years, predominately in cellphone users, I won't be cancelling my Cingular service any time soon.

-TT

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Tony

Is this cause for alarm?

no.

[Anders]

I worried for about....hmmm...15 minutes, then I thought of the smoking-lung cancer connection: Smoking increase the risk of getting lungcancer with about 60-70 times! In comparision to, what, 4 times. And the ear nerve cancer isn't even lethal, lung cancer usally is.

But still, perhaps there is something there?

[Luceiia]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
[Pet Peeve]

These should more appropriately be called acoustic Schwannomas, not neuromas. It is a non-malignant tumor of the Schwann cells, not the neuron body.

[/Pet Peeve]

-TT

While petting our peeves, shouldn't this actually be called a vestibular Schwannoma?


Luceiia

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Luceiia
While petting our peeves, shouldn't this actually be called a vestibular Schwannoma?

No, but it could probably better be called a vestibulocochlear Schwannoma as it arises at the cererbellopontine angle where this cranial nerve emerges. But, since the vestibulocochlear nerve has also been called the acoustic nerve (not completely inaccurately) in the past, this is more excusable than referring to it as a "neuroma" which implies that it is arising from a nerve body, which doesn't happen.

-TT

[Luceiia]

Acoustic Neuroma Association (http://anausa.org/)

Most acoustic neuromas actually arise from the vestibular portion of the eighth nerve rather than the acoustic portion, therefore the synonym vestibular schwannoma is preferred by most medical authors.

Interestingly enough, I also ran across this at a different site:

Acoustic neuroma

also known as:

Neurinoma
Vestibular Schwannoma
Acoustic Neurilemoma
Bilateral Acoustic Neuroma
Cerebellopontine Angle Tumor
Fibroblastoma, Perineural
Neurinoma of the Acoustic Nerve
Neurofibroma of the Acoustic Nerve
Schwannoma of the Acoustic Nerve
Benign Cranial Nerve Tumors

Lots of names for that growth.


Luceiia

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Luceiia
Lots of names for that growth.

But, it's not truly a "neuroma". That's the point.

And, despite the fact that it's "benign", it's still not a 'walk in the park' to have and recover from.

-TT

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by ThirdTwin
[Pet Peeve]

These should more appropriately be called acoustic Schwannomas, not neuromas. It is a non-malignant tumor of the Schwann cells, not the neuron body.

[/Pet Peeve]

I think what we have here is yet another example, and area rife with the potential for great misrepresentation and misunderstanding, of how association and causation is confused. Before I'd be willing to entertain cellphones as a possible causative agent in this condition, someone would have to provide a reasonably good testible and falsifiable theory about how non-ionizing radiation causes neoplasia. A controlled study with animals would suffice. And, yes, the whole dose/response thing leaves me feeling even cooler about this study, and more likely points towards a confounding association rather than any real causation. But, the jury is admittedly still out. And, unless we see a huge bubble in acoustic Schwannomas in the next 10-20 years, predominately in cellphone users, I won't be cancelling my Cingular service any time soon.

-TT

My gut feeling is, there is something to it. And not just for the non-malignant. I've just known too many people hanging around various forms of electronics -- a recording producer, a TV camera lady, a kid whose house lay under power lines, several TV newsmen, who have had the Big C, mostly brain tumors, and did not survive. I think the studies that do not show a correlation are suspect. Just my gut feeling.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by Rouser2
My gut feeling is, there is something to it. And not just for the non-malignant. I've just known too many people hanging around various forms of electronics -- a recording producer, a TV camera lady, a kid whose house lay under power lines, several TV newsmen, who have had the Big C, mostly brain tumors, and did not survive. I think the studies that do not show a correlation are suspect. Just my gut feeling. You don't have any such gut feeling, or you wouldn't spend so much time with your computer.

[Dr. Imago]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Just my gut feeling.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12747167&dopt=Abstract