June 15th, 2010
12:01 AM ET

Critic details flaws of cell phone safety study

The longer you speak on the phone, the more risk you may have of getting tumors, some doctors say.

By Danielle Dellorto
CNN Medical Senior Producer

Critics are speaking out against the the controversial Interphone cell-phone safety study released last month.

U.S. researcher Lloyd Morgan presented a report in Seoul, South Korea this week, challenging Internphone’s findings at the Bioelectromagnetics Society’s annual meeting. Morgan’s presentation is based on his re-evaluation of the Interphone study. He says it emphasizes several design flaws.

“The Interphone study is giving people false hope. Most people only hear the headline, Cell phones don’t cause cancer’ yet the devil is in the details,” Morgan, Senior Research Fellow at the Environment Health Trust, said. ““When I read study papers, I look for what they are not saying – and this study isn’t saying a lot.”

According to Morgan, the bias of the participants in the study, the exclusion of data from children and young adults, the exclusion of people who died from brain tumors as well as a limit to the type of tumors studied are among the study's design flaws and are all reason to question the validity of the Interphone research.

Interphone's international study concluded cell phone usage doesn’t increase the risk of brain tumors for the “average” person but also acknowledged that the study's findings were not definitive and called for more research.

Other scientists and researchers, like Lloyd Morgan, say the study’s findings were not only misleading to the general public but also reference out-of-date data that doesn’t correlate to the average cell-phone user today.

“The average study participant used his phone only 2-2.5 hours a month. In contrast, the typical person in the U.S. today uses his phone about 2.5 hours a week–about 4 times as much and will exceed the lifetime use of the typical Interphone study participant in less than a year,” said University of California, Berkeley School of Public Health director, Dr. Joel Moskowitz.

For now, the potential health risks of cell phones usage remain unclear.

"I want to be clear that I don’t believe all cell-phones need to be abandoned but consumers can’t read headlines from studies like this and think they are completely safe,” said Morgan. “I don’t want people to wake up 10 years from now and say, ‘Oh my god, why weren’t we told.’”

Editor's Note: Medical news is a popular but sensitive subject rooted in science. We receive many comments on this blog each day; not all are posted. Our hope is that much will be learned from the sharing of useful information and personal experiences based on the medical and health topics of the blog. We encourage you to focus your comments on those medical and health topics and we appreciate your input. Thank you for your participation.

soundoff (48 Responses)
  1. Smith in Oregon

    Wireless LAN networks send a signal as strong if not stronger than any of the most powerful cell phones available to the public. Many home wireless local area networks run 24/7 which would be like running a cell phone in your promixty 24/7.

    Recon Spy Satellites which use ground penetrating radar certainly pours down extremely powerful microwaves down on vast areas across America, many times far stronger than any cell phone could possibly achieve, what about them?

    June 15, 2010 at 02:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  2. Jodi Andro

    I have recently been diagnosed with a problem with my colon. It was determined that a portion of my colon has no "motility" in it. The odd thing that makes this relevent to this blog is that I have very rarely used my cell phone by placing it next to my head. I have almost always worn it on a clip placed on my belt on my left side, using a "corded" earpiece. Now my colon directly behind this area is "dead". I joked about it when it was first diagnosed when I didn't know which area was "dead", saying "watch it be on my left side". It didn't seem like such a joke after the results came back saying it was the left side of my colon. My problems with my colon started around the time I got my first cell phone, 8 years ago. Now I seriously wonder if there could be a correlation! I have always believed that there was a connection between cell phones and brain cancer after watching 3 people I knew dieing of brain cancer (all were frequent cell phone users, usually for their jobs). I don't know if there are any tests that can be done on that portion of my colon (since it is being removed soon) to determine why it "died". If there are any tests that can be performed on the portion that is removed, please let me know so that I can have the doctor and lab perform them, hopefully helping in collecting data regarding our cell phones and the possible damage from usage.
    Thank you,
    Jodi Andro

    June 15, 2010 at 02:32 | Report abuse | Reply
  3. David G.


    June 15, 2010 at 09:04 | Report abuse | Reply
  4. Rob

    The filthy cigarette companies used the same lies for 30 yrs,,, and it worked for a while. Wonder how long the idiots in the cell phone industry think their lies will last. Any cell phone or blackberry I find laying around gets destroyed beyond recognition,,,,after the battery has been removed and recycled of course.

    June 15, 2010 at 09:06 | Report abuse | Reply
  5. S Holloway

    Stories like this and incomplete studies that produce inconclusive results but are pushed as truth add more truth the content of books written by Kevin Trudeau. I have been skeptical of the content of his books but this article makes you wonder about the informationt that is being shared with the public.

    June 15, 2010 at 09:12 | Report abuse | Reply
  6. marianna

    As the conclusion to this study says: "The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation".

    The study actually found an increased odds ratio for some brain tumors in the group of people who spend the most hours on the phone. There was also an increased odds ratio of getting the brain tumor on the same side of the head for people who use the phone exclusively on the same side. However the researches concluded that this data can not lead to definitive conclusions due to methods of data collection and factors that have to do with the study design and other factors involved in the interpretation of scientific data.


    June 15, 2010 at 09:35 | Report abuse | Reply
  7. Carl

    Givne the variance in the several studies done so far, there do not appear to be valid conclusions drawn from any of them. However, if cell phones were a significant cause of brain cancers in the short run, ther would be mounting evidence of that increase. Most cancers, however, are not like viruses, where the actual development and manifestation are immediate. More often than not, many years can span exposure to cause and the symtoms of a tumor. The subject study is probably near worthless given the minimal exposure to RF energy and the ages of most subjects.

    I'd like to see some lab studies of DNA and the result of exposure to RF energy – is there observable damage to the molecules? Is the damage consistent with cancer development? Meantime, track younger subjects and look for a consistently higher rate, adjusting for "background" rates (what would occur with or w/o the phones).

    June 15, 2010 at 09:53 | Report abuse | Reply
  8. Someone

    Look how long it has taken to get cigarettes out of society (and they are still GROWING in the newest teenage idiot population). Imagine how long it would take to make people stop using cell phones except for short durations and only when needed!

    June 15, 2010 at 09:56 | Report abuse | Reply
  9. michelle

    Kevin Trudeau is a flim flam artiste at best. Any followers would make PT Barnum proud.

    June 15, 2010 at 09:58 | Report abuse | Reply
  10. Greg

    Here's a study for you, find out how many Amish die from brain tumors and cancer and how their numbers correspond to the rest of the population, then tell me there is no connection between cell phones and brain tumors.

    June 15, 2010 at 10:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  11. Bill

    It's not just cancer, it's sleep loss (which is a gateway disease) and probably other neurodegenerative diseases. Read Arnetz et al., Salford et al. It's brain damage pure and simple.

    June 15, 2010 at 10:14 | Report abuse | Reply
  12. Gary Crowell P.E.

    Critics want a long-term study, but at current usage rates. Any study that started 10 years ago, must necessarily start at usage rates that were prevalent 10 years ago. If you want a study that incorporates today's usage rates, it will be ready in 10 years. Critics impose impossible requirements to prove that the study is flawed, which goes to show that no study will ever be good enough to convince them.

    June 15, 2010 at 10:25 | Report abuse | Reply
  13. Hank

    The increased risk would have to be EXTREMELY high for me to stop using my cell phone. A small increase would have to be written off....just like the risk of a car accident when driving.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  14. Charles

    There have been many, many studies conducted and not one has demonstrated a causal relationship between cell phones and cancer. Some readers seem to assume that the studies are trying to cover up the relationship and I'm even reading comments here comparing the issue to tobacco usage. In general, no researcher will investigate this subject to show NO causation. That's not news and is barely publishable. Every study you read started with the hypothesis that cell phones DO cause cancer and they then attempted to demonstrate that causality scientifically by statistically proving the hypothesis. The fact that they fail to do so time and time again is not covering or hiding something, it's honest scientists admitting that they have failed to show the causation they suspected. There are a great many things in our environment that are known to be carcinogens. Worry about them instead of cell phones. They just are not the danger so many people seem to want to assume.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:18 | Report abuse | Reply
  15. davec

    the electric field at the head while holding a cell phone to one's ear is about 30 volts per meter. The E-field from wireless LAN network in a laptop PC is less than 10 V/m at one's head and generally much less.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:38 | Report abuse | Reply
  16. Kraznodar

    S Holloway – The issue I have with Kevin Trudeau is that he never claims anything in his books is true. He always is careful to say that some one else claims it is true. He gets the money and they get the risk.

    I read somewhere that one of the lead scientists on the cell phone study died of brain cancer but I can't find the article now so it must have been urban legend.

    It is typical that people latch onto a preliminary report and assume that it is the definitive answer. Just like people accused of crimes are assumed to be guilty long before the actual trials occur. Such ASS-umptions are human nature. They also tend to be wrong.

    June 15, 2010 at 11:57 | Report abuse | Reply
  17. jens

    There is some significant energy cell phones need to emit in order to communicate with the cell phone towers (we all experience that by draining the batteries with the new "cool" browser/data features). As others stated already above, the impact will not be seen immediately, it will come over time. It's like with Asbestos ... I am primarily concerned about the current generation that grows up with cell phones being one of the key factors for recognition. People usually don't think long-term, nor does the government.

    The issue with studies is that you can find the right study for whatever you want to demonstrate - and most of the people will certainly prefer to listen to those studies that sanction our current way of living.

    Just by looking at the energy to me it is reasonable that beyond a certain threshold our body will somehow respond to it. While I don't condemn cell phones as such, I at least can make sure that my kids learn how to use the wisely, and that they understand the potential risks.

    June 15, 2010 at 12:18 | Report abuse | Reply
  18. repositioner

    it seems to me that cell phone usage is something that democratic societies are accustomed to. therefore if someone doesn't want cell phone usage, they must be a communist. it's entirely possible that dems and repubs are behind bringing down cell phones so we cannot communicate when the two parties unite to form a socialist gov't.

    June 15, 2010 at 12:34 | Report abuse | Reply
  19. Jerry

    Lets just look at basics for a moment. Radio frequency electromagnetic radiation does not have enough energy to cause chemical reactions. We are subjected to radio frequency radiation constantly. Microwave radiation has enough energy to heat water or food but not to cause any chemical reaction, the food still tastes the same. It takes ultraviolet radiation to have enough energy to cause a chemical reaction, i.e. sunburn or fading of of dyes., etc. So the small power and low frequency of a cell phone stands no chance of causing any chemical reaction which would be needed to cause or initiate cancer. Will not happen.

    June 15, 2010 at 12:47 | Report abuse | Reply
  20. Eileen OConnor

    The French are taking steps to change the law in order to protect children from the potential dangers of mobile phone. See set of changes which are soon to take effect.

    1) All cell phones must be sold with a device limiting head exposure to EMF.
    2) Any advertising campaign promoting the use of cell phones by children below 14 years is banned.
    3) Providing radio equipments designed for children under 6 may be banned by ministerial order.
    4) In kindergarten primary school and junior high, the use of cell phones is banned for kids during all teaching activities in locations listed in School rules.
    5) For all cell phones sold on the French territory the SAR must be indicated clearly and in French. Possible risks resulting from excessive use must also be mentioned

    In addition Russian officials have recommended that children under the age of 18 years not use cell phones at all. Similarly, the United Kingdom, Israel, Belgium, Germany and India have discouraged use of cell phones by children. In Finland, the Radiation and Nuclear Power Authority has urged parents to err on the side of caution.

    President Obama’s Cancer Panel reported in May, 2010 that "the true burden of environmentally induced cancers has been grossly underestimated" and strongly urged action to reduce people's widespread exposure to carcinogens. Quote taken from the report: “Another sensitive issue raised in the report was the risk of brain cancer from cell phones. Scientists are divided on whether there is a link. Until more research is conducted, the panel recommended that people reduce their usage by making fewer and shorter calls, using hands-free devices so that the phone is not against the head and refraining from keeping a phone on a belt or in a pocket. Even if cell phones raise the risk of cancer slightly, so many people are exposed that "it could be a large public health burden," Schettler said”
    Link to full report: http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

    Eileen O’Connor
    Radiation Research Trust

    June 15, 2010 at 12:55 | Report abuse | Reply
  21. Bill the Cat

    Portable cellular phones transmit at .5 watts max.
    Cellular towers transmit at 100 watts max.
    (Transmission levels regulated by FCC)

    Your favorite FM radio station 500,000 watts.

    Do your own study. If radio waves can cause cancer, do you really think that 1/2 watt phone is the problem?

    June 15, 2010 at 13:01 | Report abuse | Reply
  22. Matt

    Smith in Oregon,

    Your contention that the sources of microwaves and radio wave radiation from things like WIFI and spy satellites uses erroneous logic since it does not consider the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law inverse square law of radiation dissipation. The sources sources of radiation that you mentioned might be outputting a greater wattage of radiation however they are much farther away from your body than a cell phone.

    That being said, to think that cells phones cause cancer is completely ludicrous.

    June 15, 2010 at 13:15 | Report abuse | Reply
  23. Justin

    Hey Greg doing a study on the Amish and cancer wouldnt be a control study all it would prove is the Amish is healther then the rest of us, they are more active, they eat healther not eatting all the pros. Foods we eat. We want to blame cell phones but yet dont know the results of the bug sprays, groth hormones, fertilizers, pros. Food and lack of exercise that cancer pations have more in coming then their use of cell phones. My grandpa passed away of brain tumer way before cell phones but was farmer so way the real evidence. and the conextion with bug sprays and ADD in our kids.

    June 15, 2010 at 13:16 | Report abuse | Reply
  24. n.s.

    to Jodi Andro

    stop saying your colon is "dead". If it were truly dead and necrotic you would be in the OR now not typing on your computer. I understand the need to attribute your friends' brain tumours to their cell phone use, but let me show you the flaw in your thought process. I have 3 friends that have colon cancer and they all were breast fed as babies. By your logic breast milk might have caused their cancer. There are many other potential causes for your colonic motility problems. Wait for the pathology reports and stop jumping to conclusions. Get well soon.

    June 15, 2010 at 13:31 | Report abuse | Reply
    • Jodi Andro for N.S.

      N.S. I was not jumping to conclusions, simply voicing a "possible connection" that worried me. As many have said above, the cigarette industry were able to hide any "proof" that cigs caused cancer for many decades, as many major industries have been known to do in our past with various different products, chemicals, etc.! You are very right that my motility issue with my colon could be caused by many different reasons – and I only used the "term – DEAD" as, unfortunately not everyone is familiar with medical terms like "motility issues", but figured my term "dead" would relay the explanation of the issue. If it is proved that the area of my colon that had virtually no motility (movement), was the section directly under where I always clipped my cell phone to my waist; would it conclusively determine that my cell phone caused it – definitely not, but it does make one wonder!

      January 10, 2012 at 22:12 | Report abuse |
  25. real-er

    How can you prove a negative? That is, how can you definitively prove that wireless phones DON'T cause cancer? You can't. No one can. We can only look at study after study after study that finds no link at all between radio waves and cancer. A negative can never be proven.

    June 15, 2010 at 13:33 | Report abuse | Reply
  26. Todd

    If you want to reduce your risk of cancer, there are about 50 things that virtually everyone can do that will have a MUCH bigger effect than shutting off the cell phone. Reduce fat in your diet. Eliminate about three-quarters of the protein you eat. Exercise. Use sun screen. Wear full-cover clothing in the sun. If you live in Denver, move. Eat more fiber. Avoid processed foods.

    We face far greater carcinogens from our environment and food than we do from cell phones. Stay out of the drive through lane and learn to cook. THEN worry about your cell phone.

    June 15, 2010 at 13:45 | Report abuse | Reply
  27. Carl

    What may prove to be more interesting is that with the proliferation of new "phones" with keyboards and screens, it's getting likely that the head-level exposure will actually drop. A significant number of people spend a lot of time texting vs. talking, an activity that pretty much removes the phone from the head area.

    For Bill the Cat, the various power levels are interesting, but they need to be considered at the point of absorption, not of transmission. At about 5 cm, a 0.5W phone would impose about 0.3mW/sq.cm on a bad day. The cell tower, at maybe a km away would impose a 0.0003mW/sq.cm. The FM station doesn't even operate in the band where RF absorption takes place.

    June 15, 2010 at 14:06 | Report abuse | Reply
  28. nahshon

    With the ever increasing usage of texting via messaging phones, how does this study affect those who use their mobile devices primarily for texting?

    June 15, 2010 at 14:18 | Report abuse | Reply
  29. Anonymous

    It is natural for humans to equate correlation with causation. Logicians have proven that two events following in close proximity of each other is not sufficient evidence of causation. Every study has failed to show a causitive link between cell phone usage and cancer. People like Trudeau who have been involved in shady business practices continue to make money off of this logical fallacy. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is their tool because they know that human psychology naturally seeks patterns. We must also beware of the cautionary principle, that says if there's a possibility it may then the best course of action is to believe that it does. http://www.skepdic.com has a great article on this.

    June 15, 2010 at 14:43 | Report abuse | Reply
  30. Ethan

    Clearly, many years after cellphones and wireless networks became the norm, we still do not have not enough research into the effects of wifi and cell phone signals on living tissue and humans. Or maybe, the research results were unfavorable to business interests, thus not the kind of knowledge they'd want to share with the general public?

    I am not taking my chances, I try hard to minimize how often I use a cell phone. But, like a previous commenter said, what about wifi, satellites, other communication signals?

    We need an honest study, not influenced by money interests. But, how can we have a study that is not biased towards sources of funding?


    June 15, 2010 at 14:59 | Report abuse | Reply
  31. Matt

    The notoin that wireless networks are as big a threat as cell phones is misleading. Most of us don't hold our wireless routers up to our heads ever. Cell phones are in close body proximity hence the greater concern. I agree, we can never study something and prove a negative. All we can do is determine the health risks and their likelihoods. We should aggresively answer these questions because consumers need to be informed so they can make decisions that are best for them.

    June 15, 2010 at 15:04 | Report abuse | Reply
  32. real-er

    Carl sez: "The FM station doesn't even operate in the band where RF absorption takes place."

    From the FCC's website: "...the NCRP, IEEE and ICNIRP guidelines for maximum permissible exposure are different for different transmitting frequencies. This is due to the finding (discussed above) that whole-body human absorption of RF energy varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most restrictive limits on whole-body exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where the human body absorbs RF energy most efficiently..."

    Carl, this would seem to place the 89MHz to 108MHz FM broadcasting band squarely in the middle of the range considered to be most efficient for bodily absorption.

    June 15, 2010 at 15:25 | Report abuse | Reply
  33. Michael S

    Ok, First off. This blog says very little. It says cell phone-cancer risk study flawed because of old data. Also, people talking about WiFi and other Electromagnetic exposure fail to acknowlege recent advancements (Adding WiFi to phones) and also the definition of proximity. There is a difference between a transmitter within 3" of your head, and the router within 1200" of your head. Air refracts radiowaves. Also frequency and amplitude mean a lot with regards to range and penetration. Your cell phone running 900-2200MHz to reach a cell tower miles away vs you 2400MHz Wifi Router with a max range of 100' or your Bluetooth 2450MHz with a range of 30'. Combine those 2 facts, a cell phone near your ear has the potential to effect your brain more that the router across the room. Nevermind your cell phone has speakers and microphones. (now I am reaching here, but hey it COULD be relavent, though unlikely) Speakers and microphones mean there are magnets. Regardless, If my phone will give me cancer, then I should fear the sun a lot more. (Gamma radiation frequently pierces cement walls.)

    June 15, 2010 at 15:27 | Report abuse | Reply
  34. Billshut

    Smith in Oregon said:
    "Wireless LAN networks send a signal as strong if not stronger than any of the most powerful cell phones available to the public. Many home wireless local area networks run 24/7 which would be like running a cell phone in your promixty 24/7.

    Recon Spy Satellites which use ground penetrating radar certainly pours down extremely powerful microwaves down on vast areas across America, many times far stronger than any cell phone could possibly achieve, what about them?"

    The most important lesson to remember with any form of radiation, whether it be radio frequency from a cell phone, or ionizing radiation from a nuclear power plant, is that 3 things affect how much damage is done to the human body–time, distance and shielding.

    As to your first question, concerning wireless network routers, my response would be, "Do you hold that up to your head for any time during the day?" NO, you don't. You've got not only the distance from the router that separates you from it, but also any shielding (walls, etc) that exists between you and it. Wireless routers are a non-issue.

    As to your second question, I'm pretty sure there's a healthy distance between even the closest satellite in orbit around the earth, and us down here. When I was in the navy, we had radars (similar type of radiation to a microwave ground penetrating radar) that were rotating and radiating on board the ship, but we weren't being cooked by it. Why? Location (they put them up high), direction of the beam (they attenuate the beam that might effect people in the crew areas) and distance. So long as you weren't standing in front of the radar dish while it's radiating, you're not being cooked. And those were radars that could easily see out 120+ miles to the horizon.
    According to some quick research I just did, a satellite has to be at least 62 miles (100 kilometers) out in order to attain orbit around the earth, so it's pretty likely that the radar on my aircraft carrier was as strong, if not stronger, than any on board a satellite. What keeps us from being cooked by satellite radars? Simple.....distance. You don't hold it up to your head.

    Same can't be said for your cell phone, can it?

    June 15, 2010 at 15:41 | Report abuse | Reply
  35. Charles

    Again, scare tactics. US "researcher" presents in Seoul, South Korea... hmmm- not a doctor? Why South Korea? Also, are we all supposed to ignore the fact that cell phones have been around for 20+ years? And this bozo with the 2.5 hours a week number; where did you get that? If they're saying the average user spoke 2.5 hours a month, that's the result of the survey. For me, I'm on my phone MAYBE 30 minutes a month. My wife, closer to five hours but, limited duration. Frequency, duration, and intensity all play a factor. Let's go back to the power lines, they're more fun anyway,

    June 15, 2010 at 16:13 | Report abuse | Reply
  36. jeff

    nahshon they get thumb cancer! Oh and Rob if I saw you destroying a persons cell phone or blackberry I would call the police on you.

    June 15, 2010 at 18:27 | Report abuse | Reply
  37. Aaron

    @Smith in Oregon, WiFi transmit power is typically quite a bit less than it is for a mobile phone. At most, WiFi devices have a range of a couple hundred feet. Your mobile phone signal often has to travel miles to reach a tower.

    Typical WiFi transmission power is in the neighborhood of 50 mW (max ~200 mW), while typical cell phone (GSM/3G) is in the neighborhood of 500 mW (max ~2000 mW).

    June 15, 2010 at 19:10 | Report abuse | Reply
  38. Dr Bill Toth

    Always follow the money trail with any study. See who paid for the study and evaluate the results accordingly...and then you will know why "independent studies" are valued so highly.
    Live with Intention,

    June 15, 2010 at 21:11 | Report abuse | Reply
  39. odessa

    June 15th, 2010 02:10 ET

    Wireless LAN networks send a signal as strong if not stronger than any of the most powerful cell phones available to the public. Many home wireless local area networks run 24/7 which would be like running a cell phone in your promixty 24/7.

    Recon Spy Satellites which use ground penetrating radar certainly pours down extremely powerful microwaves down on vast areas across America, many times far stronger than any cell phone could possibly achieve, what about them?
    When was the last time you held your wireless router to your ear? Or had a spy satellite in your bonnet? Because it IS proximity and it falls off exponentially

    June 15, 2010 at 21:17 | Report abuse | Reply
  40. Chris

    With all the harmful things that we are exposed to daily (many of which are mentioned above), there is no way they will be able to prove beyond a doubt that cell phones can lead to brain tumors. Cell phone companies are well aware of this. What is true is that cell phone use warms your ear and head. When you consider that your body's natural state is to keep your brain cool, this is not a desirable effect. I believe that children are especially vulnerable since there brains are still growing and developing. We may never get the truth on this issue. That being said, there are so many other reasons to reduce cell phone use.
    Besides the potentially harmful health reason, people using their cell phones in public are irritating. People talk on their cell phones in churches, restaurants, movie theaters and many other public places where they shouldn't without ever considering how rude it is. Many of these people are addicted to their electronic devices and don't even think about it anymore. Public cell phones users are today's "smokers." Maybe we could have a cell phone or non cell phone section in restaurants. What about second hand radiation?;)
    The question really is why is all this connectivity necessary? Most of it really isn't. We managed to somehow live our lives perfectly fine before cell phones were invented. How many of cell phone conversions are absolutely necessary and couldn't wait until the person could get to land line? Cell phones are a good tool, especially in an emergency but are truly not a necessity.

    June 15, 2010 at 22:52 | Report abuse | Reply
  41. altereggo

    "It takes ultraviolet radiation to have enough energy to cause a chemical reaction"
    You are talking about ionizing radiation. Non-ionizing radiation can also cause chemical reactions, as in visual phototransduction in the human eye.
    Nevertheless, I wish the hippies trying to ban cell phones would take a science course. Or at least wear tin-foil hats so we know who the crazy people are.

    June 16, 2010 at 01:51 | Report abuse | Reply
  42. sandy

    I was recently diagnosed for a parotid tumor on the same side of my face that I used my cell phone on. I was in sales for many years, and spent countless hours on my cell phone. After surgery, and extensive treatment, I am not taking any more chances – my cell phone is for emergency use only. Some studies have shown a 50% higher chance of getting a parotid tumor with heavy cell phone usage. I only wish I had known this earlier, as I believe my cancer could have been prevented. I am healthy, never smoked, and exercise 5-6 hours a week. There is also no history of cancer in my family.

    June 16, 2010 at 05:44 | Report abuse | Reply
  43. Sam

    If anyone wants to rad the studies for themselves then they can find them though various web sites which are highlighting the evidence which is being kept from the public by governments and industry.

    June 21, 2010 at 15:25 | Report abuse | Reply
  44. tony c

    The cause-effect relationship here is all bass ackwards. Heavy cell phone usage does not cause brain damage. It's brain damage that leads to heavy cell phone usage. Want proof? Just observe the people who are always yapping on their phones in public so all of us have to listen to what invariably amounts to half of a stupid conversation (which at least is only half as bad as it could be).

    So there.

    August 1, 2010 at 10:36 | Report abuse | Reply
  45. 开档连裤袜

    开档连裤袜 https://www.sesexy.com/prolist.40.html

    March 18, 2016 at 10:38 | Report abuse | Reply
  46. เกมยิงปลา

    Very nice content here.I really like this blog so much a lot of content and very informative for everyone.Thanks.เกมยิงปลา


    February 24, 2021 at 23:52 | Report abuse | Reply
  47. ed pills

    men with erectile dysfunction https://canadaerectiledysfunctionpills.com/ erectile transplant

    April 12, 2021 at 18:37 | Report abuse | Reply

Post a comment


CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

About this blog

Get a behind-the-scenes look at the latest stories from CNN Chief Medical Correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Senior Medical Correspondent Elizabeth Cohen and the CNN Medical Unit producers. They'll share news and views on health and medical trends - info that will help you take better care of yourself and the people you love.