It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Does Long-Term Cell Phone Use Lead to Brain Tumors? New studies say yes.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 04:15 PM

The highest-quality research data available suggests that long-term exposure to microwaves from cellular phones may lead to an increased risk of brain tumors, reports a paper in the November/December issue of Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography.

Although debate continues, independent studies with long-term follow-up strongly suggest an increased risk of brain tumors related to the use of cellular or cordless phones.

"We conclude that the current standard of exposure to microwave during mobile phone use is not safe for long-term exposure and needs to be revised" conclude the study authors, led by R.B. Dubey of Apeejay College of Engineering, Sohna, Gurgaon, India.

Brain Tumor Risk May Double after 10 Years of Cell Phone Use

Well this is kind of bad news. Think about all the young kids whose phones are literally glued to their heads. And to think this includes cordless as well. Crazy stuff!!

Glad that studies continue and that we will know what is going on, although at that point it might be too late.

Im happy I have my hands free in my vehicle, as I barely ever have a cell phone to my head, although the occasional time I am on the phone at home, which is cordless (who actually has a corded phone anymore?) is still worrying. I actually tried to buy a corded phone the other day and they are hard as hell to find new.

Any thoughts?

edit on 20-1-2011 by predator0187 because: Grammar

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:05 PM
As much as I love anything that highlights the horror of the cellular phone, there is one possible confounding variable - those who show long term use of cell phones will be largely city born-and-raised, or have spent a significant part of their youth in cities. Those who are considerable distances away from cities are likely to have (in my humble opinion, based solely on anecdotal evidence) lower cell-phone use.

It could be some other aspect of cities is caused with both - although that the Glioma tends to be on the side which the cell-phone is used (a 2009 study, I think) does rather suggest that there is a causal relationship in this correlation (and it's not that people who have cancer to tele-socialise).

Hopefully this will eventually lead to us getting rid of the damned things and actually talking to the people we're actually around - a form of socialisation that may belong in the 18th century, but doesn't tend to lead to cancer.
edit on 20/1/2011 by TheWill because: added bracketed bit, removed redundant text.

posted on Jan, 20 2011 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by predator0187

Think about all the young kids whose phones are literally glued to their heads.

I totally agree with you Op. Specially when it comes to the long term effects of Cell-Use by kids. I do recall there was a study about the absorbation of the cell signal between adults and children. The study had to do with the fact, that the cell signal, penetrate much deeper into the brain of the children,cause of the thickness of the skull in younger ages.

Anyway, here is nice Source from American Cancer Society, that you may wanna look at. It is very detailed and helpful.

In summary, most studies published so far have not found a link between cell phone use and the development of tumors. However, these studies have had some important limitations that make them unlikely to end the controversy about whether cell phone use affects cancer risk.

First, studies have not yet been able to follow people for very long periods of time. When tumors form after a known cancer-causing exposure, it usually takes decades for them to develop. Because cell phones have been in widespread use for less than 20 years in most countries, it is not possible to rule out future health effects that have not yet appeared.

Second, cell phone usage has been and is constantly changing. People are using cell phones much more than they were even 10 years ago, and the phones themselves are very different from what was used in the past. This makes it hard to know if the results of studies looking at cell phone use in years past would still apply today.

Third, the studies published so far have focused on adults, rather than children. Cell phone use is now widespread even among young children. It is possible that if there are health effects, they might be more pronounced in children because their nervous systems are still developing and their lifetime exposure will be greater than adults, who started at a later age.


posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 01:25 AM
reply to post by predator0187
I suspected cell phones present an increased risk for a long time, too many brain tumors occurred right next to where the antenna is to be a coincidence, but only with heavy users.

Two alternatives make cell phone use slightly safer, put the phone somewhere besides next to your head. There are a couple of ways to do this. I have a wired headset and can attach the phone to my belt. I may get a tumor on my hip or something instead of my brain, but I think it's a lot less life threatening and easier to operate.

There are also wireless headsets for the cell phone, but then you're back to an electromagnetic emission again. However the power for that should be lower, so if there's a risk with the wireless headset it's probably lower than for the cell phone antenna which has a reasonable amount of power. Think of it this way, the cell phone needs to reach a tower miles away, but the wireless headset only needs to reach what, 10 feet?

Your cordless phone at home is somewhere in between power-wise, mine has a range of maybe 60 -100 feet depending if it's going through walls or in the open. I don't think the risk of a cordless phone is nearly as high as a cell phone, because the power is lower.

My recommendation would be for anyone who is on the phone for a living, like a telemarketer, to use a wired headset. If you're not on the phone that much, the risk isn't as high.

posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 02:14 AM
What about blue tooth use? I admit I'm not as educated in the differences in radiation levels between cellphones and BT tech.



posted on Jan, 21 2011 @ 03:18 AM

Originally posted by amongus
What about blue tooth use? I admit I'm not as educated in the differences in radiation levels between cellphones and BT tech.
Did you read my post right above yours where I talked about wireless headsets? That encompasses bluetooth, and but I didn't specify that because it's not the only wireless headset technology, and because there are multiple bluetooth specifications, but since you asked:

Bluetooth has 3 different power levels:

Bluetooth devices may have different RF power classification levels. The power versions for Bluetooth include; 1 mW - class 3, 2.5 mW - class 2, and 100 mWatts - class 1.

Devices that have an extremely low power level of 1 milliwatt have a very short range of approximately 1 meter. Bluetooth devices that have a power level of up to 100 milliwatts can provide a transmission range of approximately to 100 meters.
Not sure which power level yours has? How far will it transmit? those guidelines should give you some idea. The risk level with the 100mW unit is 100 times greater than with the 1mW unit, if the risk is linearly related to power, which seems possible.

The power output of a cell phone is higher than bluetooth, I think a typical value of modern cell phones might be in the ballpark of 500mW (though older phones could have a maximum power level of as much as 4000mW !), so that's 5 times the risk of the most powerful bluetooth, and 500 times the risk of the least powerful bluetooth. The power of your cell phone could vary but I'm pretty sure it will be higher than 100mW and no higher than 3000 or 4000 mW and only that high if it's unique or old.

According to this the time averaged power level of a cordless handset is about 10mW but the base unit (with the antenna, that plugs into the wall) is closer to the cell phone range, about 250mW:

One DECT cordless handset used by a typical household generates about 10 mW of time-averaged power, much less than a mobile phone operating at maximum power. Cordless handsets need less power than mobile phones because the signals do not have to travel as far to reach the base station – a few meters compared to up to a few kilometers. More power is required for radio communications over greater distances.

Cordless phone charger units are usually no more than a few tens of meters from the handsets. Mobile phone base stations can be kilometres from the mobile phone.

As communication is two-way, there is also the field from the cordless phone base station to consider. The maximum time-averaged power level for a DECT base station is the same as for a mobile phone handset – 250 mW. But the exposure is less because the cordless phone base station is not held to the head, and the field strength falls rapidly with distance.
So, locate the base unit for your cordless phone where your head won't be right next to that antenna, as it could be almost as dangerous as a cordless phone.

I also found this:

Some national radiation advisory authorities, including those of Austria,[5] France,[79] Germany,[80] and Sweden,[81] have recommended measures to minimize exposure to their citizens. Examples of the recommendations are:

* Use hands-free to decrease the radiation to the head.
* Keep the mobile phone away from the body.
* Do not use telephone in a car without an external antenna.

The use of "hands-free" was not recommended by the British Consumers' Association in a statement in November 2000 as they believed that exposure was increased.[82] However, measurements for the (then) UK Department of Trade and Industry[83] and others for the French l’Agence française de sécurité sanitaire environnementale[84] showed substantial reductions. In 2005 Professor Lawrie Challis and others said clipping a ferrite bead onto hands-free kits stops the radio waves travelling up the wire and into the head


log in