MQ + X = 2C National Cancer Institute study of brain tumours here:
nejm.org
>Methods. We examined the use of cellular telephones in a case-control study of intracranial tumors of the nervous system conducted between 1994 and 1998. We enrolled 782 patients through hospitals in Phoenix, Arizona; Boston; and Pittsburgh; 489 had histologically confirmed glioma, 197 had meningioma, and 96 had acoustic neuroma. The 799 controls were patients admitted to the same hospitals as the patients with brain tumors for a variety of nonmalignant conditions.
Results. As compared with never, or very rarely, having used a cellular telephone, the relative risks associated with a cumulative use of a cellular telephone for more than 100 hours were 0.9 for glioma (95 percent confidence interval, 0.5 to 1.6), 0.7 for meningioma (95 percent confidence interval, 0.3 to 1.7), 1.4 for acoustic neuroma (95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 3.5), and 1.0 for all types of tumors combined (95 percent confidence interval, 0.6 to 1.5). There was no evidence that the risks were higher among persons who used cellular telephones for 60 or more minutes per day or regularly for five or more years. Tumors did not occur disproportionately often on the side of head on which the telephone was typically used.
Conclusions. These data do not support the hypothesis that the recent use of hand-held cellular telephones causes brain tumors, but they are not sufficient to evaluate the risks among long-term, heavy users and for potentially long induction periods. (N Engl J Med 2001;344:79-86.)>
The full study is available by buying a copy or by subscribing on line.
The New England Journal of Medicine editorial here: nejm.org
I asked Tero about it [he's a PhD brain researcher] but drew a blank
Message 15168108
Message 15168229
My comment on the study:
Message 15171157
I stand by my microwave coincident energy plus almost but not quite enough to ionize and break bonds high frequency background radiation will cause an increase in ionizing due to wave superposition.
The 0.1% extra energy [compared with bond-breaking energy] which 2GHz provides should be enough to swing a few more breaks than would otherwise have occurred.
The question is how much high-energy radiation is in the region within 0.1% of breaking a bond and actually breaking it, which is where the 2GHz cellphone radiation might be just enough to swing the deal? Obviously not much! But there is obviously some since the spectrum is continuous. I need some charts of incoming radiation and the frequencies of it.
If anyone has a url, feel free to link it here! Please.
We'd have to exclude people 10km high in aircraft because they don't use cellphones there anyway. The extra dose of high energy radiation they'd get in aircraft [due to less atmospheric protection] would make cellphones trivial. The National Cancer Institute should perhaps study how many hours the people with brain cancer had spent 10 km high. Air crew obviously have an elevated risk. [Little joke there].
Meanwhile, I figure I'm still in line for the Nobel Prize in Medicine for identifying the causative role of cellphone frequencies in brain tumours. Okay, it's small, but it exists. It's a bit like the Yeti to prove, but with big enough studies, I'll find the needle in the haystack.
Mqurice |
