Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Long-term Mobile Phone Use and Acoustic Neuroma Risk

Long-term Mobile Phone Use and Acoustic Neuroma Risk

David Pettersson,Tiit Mathiesen,Michaela Prochazka,Tommy Bergenheim,Rut Florentzson,Henrik Harder,Gunnar Nyberg,Peter Siesjö,and Maria Feychtinga

Epidemiology. 2014 Jan 15. [Epub ahead of print]. Long-term Mobile Phone Use and Acoustic Neuroma Risk.

Pettersson D, Mathiesen T, Prochazka M, Bergenheim T, Florentzson R, Harder H, Nyberg G, Siesjö P, Feychting M.

Author information
From the aInstitute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; bDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; cDepartment of Neurosurgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden; dDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg, Sweden; eDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Linköping University Hospital, Linköping, Sweden; fDepartment of Neurosurgery, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden; and gDepartment of Neurosurgery, Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Background: There is concern about potential effects of radiofrequency  fields generated by mobile phones on cancer risk. Most previous studies have found no association between mobile phone use and  acoustic neuroma, although information about long-term use is limited.

Methods: We conducted a population-based, nation-wide, case- control study of acoustic neuroma in Sweden. Eligible cases were persons aged 20 to 69 years, who were diagnosed between 2002 and 2007. Controls were randomly selected from the population registry, matched on age, sex, and residential area. Postal questionnaires were completed by 451 cases (83%) and 710 controls (65%).

Results: Ever having used mobile phones regularly (defined as weekly use for at least 6 months) was associated with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.18 (95% confidence interval = 0.88 to 1.59). The association was weaker for the longest induction time (10 years) (1.11 [0.76 to 1.61]) and for regular use on the tumor side (0.98 [0.68 to 1.43]). The OR for the highest quartile of cumulative calling time (680 hours) was 1.46 (0.98 to 2.17). Restricting analyses to histologically confirmed cases reduced all ORs; the OR for 680 hours was 1.14 (0.63 to 2.07). A similar pattern was seen for cordless land-line phones, although with slightly higher ORs. Analyses of the complete history of laterality of mobile phone revealed considerable bias in laterality analyses.

Conclusions: The findings do not support the hypothesis that long- term mobile phone use increases the risk of acoustic neuroma. The study suggests that phone use might increase the likelihood that an acoustic neuroma case is detected and that there could be bias in the laterality analyses performed in previous studies. (Epidemiology 2014;25: 00–00)

The abstract omits the risk that was found.

From the paper:
"Regular use of cordless phones was associated with an  OR of 1.41 (95% CI = 1.07 to 1.86) overall, and 1.24 (0.83 to  1.86) for histologically confirmed cases....
The OR increased with cumulative number of hours of cordless phone use; 1.67 (1.13 to  2.49) overall".

"Cordless phone use seemed to be associated with an increased risk of acoustic neuroma....the average output power emitted from cordless phones (10 mW) is considerably lower than that emitted from both analogue (900 mW) and digital (GSM900 240 mW, GSM1800 125 mW) mobile phones....Therefore, it seems unlikely that the reported exposure reflects a causal relation to risk of neuroma formation. Acoustic neuroma risk increased with increasing cumulative calling time with a cordless phone, with no consistent dose– response pattern for cumulative number of calls..... Our results are broadly consistent with most previous studies of mobile phones and acoustic neuroma. Most epidemiologic studies have shown no increases in the overall risk estimates of acoustic neuroma risk and mobile phone use, with the exception of the studies by Hardell et al".

Conflict of interests statement:
"M.F [= Maria Feychting] is co-investigator of the COSMOS cohort study, funded by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research, AFA Insurance, and VINNOVA (The Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems). VINNOVA received funds for this purpose from TeliaSonera, EricssonAB, and Telenor. The provision of funds to the COSMOS study investigators via VINNOVA is governed by agreements that guarantees COSMOS’ complete scientific independence. M.F. is vice chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, an independent body setting guidelines for nonionizing radiation protection. She serves as advisor to a number of national and international public advisory and research steering groups concerning the potential health effects of exposure to nonionizing radiation.
Meaning, despite the exposure on the hole in the firewall in 2012, Feychting is repeating the same argument of a firewall.
2012: Swedish Magazine New Technique discloses hole in the firewall Feychting/Ahlbom and Mobile phone industry
Maria Feychting sees no conflict in leading ICNIRP's activities while she receives industry funding.
- I do not think there is a problem because funds channeled through third parties acting firewall between our researchers and industry, ensuring our independence, she says.
But Ny Teknik's audit shows that the industry and scientists first discuss together about the funding and then turn to Vinnova and request authority to act an intermediary.
Vinnova officer Pontus von Bahr stated that the parties came to the former Director-General Per Eriksson with the arrangement.
Mona Nilsson found in 2011: Cordless phone investigation was excluded from CEFALO study (also from the INTERPHONE)
"A new industry-sponsored study on brain tumour risks in children who use mobile  phones was presented to the media in July 2011. The press-release claimed that the  results were ”reassuring” whereas the study itself indicated an increased risk. Apart from playing down the results, there is evidence that the scientists also manipulated the  research in order to underestimate the risks, especially of cordless phones...Cefalo scientists Martin Röösli and Maria Feychting.....Martin Röösli, the coordinator of Cefalo and a board member of the industry funded Swiss Research Foundation on Mobile communication gives the following explanation of why the Cefalo team only studied the first three years of cordless phone use: - You cannot prove all hypotheses with one study, unless you make a very long interview. Source, Mona Nilsson, October 2, 2011 Mobile phones and cancer risks  Scientists manipulated research – played down brain tumour risks in children."

No comments:

Post a Comment