Link Between Cell Phones and Brain Cancer Inconclusive

Link Between Cell Phones and Brain Cancer Inconclusive: Reading Between the Headlines

Do cell phones cause brain cancer? According to a CTV news report on May 17th, 2010, (http://bit.ly/cvB6yj), a recently published study in the International Journal of Epidemiology, called Interphone, found that the connection between cell phones and brain cancer remains inconclusive.  

Although I do not (yet) have access to the actual Interphone study, I did some follow up research to “read between the headlines”.
   
According to Steven Novella, an academic clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine, the findings from Interphone illustrate that there is still no clear association between cell phones and cancer (http://bit.ly/c6ia1B).

Although the study did find that, from the 10,000 people studied, there was a 40% increase in risk of getting a brain tumor among the top 10% of mobile phone users. Novella argues that these results were disregarded because of questionable methodology. Novella points out that many of the participants of this study reported improbable amounts of cell phone use – such as 12 hours per day. This data did not provide an accurate account of cell phone use and may have skewed the results.

However, when the data is looked at with number of calls made instead of time per day, the data made more sense and showed no correlation between cell phone use and brain tumours.

Surprisingly, the study also found that average cell phone users had a 20% lower risk of getting cancer. This data was also disregarded due to statistical anomalies that can often occur in this type of research.   

Although this study has several other shortcomings, including only studying cell phone use over a ten to fifteen year period, and only studying adults rather than children who may be more at risk, it still remains inconclusive whether or not cell phone use causes cancer.

Cancer: Is it Preventable?

Not a day goes by that there is not a news report suggesting that cancer is everywhere. It is in our foods, in our perfumes, in our water, in our cell phones and, according to a CTV news report from April 14th, 2010, it is even in our vitamins (http://bit.ly/aT0kkc).

 Often, the way media portrays cancer can make it seem that no matter what we do or how we live our lives cancer is unavoidable – it is a disease of lifestyle and of aging – a consequence of our standard of living.

For instance, as Canadians are living longer, over all cancer rates have been increasing.  According to Canadian Cancer Society statistics from 2009 (http://bit.ly/9sqjFC), 40% of Canadian women and 45% of Canadian men will develop cancer during their lifetime. The odds of being diagnosed with cancer increase significantly when Canadians reach the age of 55.

But is cancer really unavoidable?

Earlier this month, a comprehensive report was released by the President's Cancer Panel, which argues that there is a growing body of evidence linking cancer to the thousands of chemicals found in our daily environment. The report, called Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk (http://bit.ly/dknqlw) points out that there are nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of them have been understudied, not studied at all and are largely unregulated. From what is known, many of these chemicals have been linked to cancer.

 Although this is an American report and presents American statistics, this report should matter to Canadians because it presents a growing body of evidence linking cancer, the environment and industry. What is more concerning though, from what I can tell, there was no Canadian media coverage of this report.

There seems to be very little Canadian dialogue and resources dedicated to informing Canadians regarding the potential links between our environment, industry and cancer. More resources tend to be devoted to cancer treatment, which is understandable. Cancer affects a large proportion of Canadians and has lead to an increase in survivorship. This must not go unnoticed.

Yet, it is becoming more evident that cancer may be linked to our environment and industry. Cancer may not simply be a consequence of our standard of living and may be more preventable than we think.

Perfume Contains Secret Chemicals – Study Finds

On May 12th, 2010, the Ottawa Citizen published Perfume Contains Secret Chemicals – Study Finds. The article highlights a study, conducted by Toronto-based Environmental Defence and California’s Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, that illustrates that many brand name perfumes and colognes contain undisclosed chemicals not listed on the labels that are associated with hormone disruption and allergic reactions which may have some long term negative health affects including the onset of asthma, cancer and birth defects.

According to the article (http://bit.ly/aRYmgk), the study illustrates that out of the 17 fragrances tested, 91 ingredients were identified by laboratory tests or product labels. However, out of these ingredients 38 were found not be listed on the labels of these products with an average of 14 so-called “secret” chemicals per product.

However, other than illustrating that under Canadian cosmetic regulations (in effect since 2004) companies may lump intentional fragrance ingredients under the generic term "parfum” leaving many ingredients undisclosed, this article does not provide any useful information concerning how these chemicals may be harmful or which of the 17 products tested are available in Canada. This information would be useful for those who may be using these products.

According to the study, Not so Sexy: The Health Risk of Secret Chemicals in Fragrance (http://bit.ly/aRGpBn), only 4 of the 17 fragrances tested are available in Canada. They are:
•    American Eagle Seventy Seven;
•    Acqua Di Gio by Giorgio Armani;
•    Light Blue by Dolce and Gabbana;
•    and Quick Silver (for men)

Interestingly, these four products had some of the highest scores in terms of number of total chemicals, unlabeled “secret” chemicals, multiple sensitizing chemicals (chemicals known to trigger allergic reactions, such as asthma, wheezing, headaches and contact dermatitis) and multiple hormone disruptors (chemicals known for mimicking hormones which may impair basic body functions like tissue growth and repair which may increase the risk of some cancers).
The study states on page 2 of the report:
Acqua Di Gio contained the highest number of total chemicals and the highest number of sensitizing chemicals, and American Eagle Seventy Seven contained the highest number of secret chemicals. Quick Silver (for men) was tied with two others for the highest number hormone disrupting chemicals.

This study is quite concerning and provides a glance at how little is known about the many fragrant ingredients used in every day products including shampoos, lotions, bath products, cleaning sprays, air fresheners and laundry and dishwasher detergents. Some research (cited in the study) has shown that many of these ingredients commonly found in these products may cause allergic reactions, asthma cancer and birth defects. But, this research leaves a lot to be desired in proving the extent to which these ingredients may be harmful. Very little funding or research is dedicated towards studying how we react to multiple combinations of these ingredients.

There is also a lack of proper regulation to ensure that we know which ingredients may be questionable and which products contain these ingredients. This information should be provided without question so we can make rational choices in terms of which products we feel safe to use.

If I knew which ingredients were questionable and which products contained these ingredients, I would think twice before purchasing and using them. For example, I have been known to wear Light Blue by Dolce and Gabana. However, after reading this study, I am going to think twice before wearing this cologne.