4.2 Article

Cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumours

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER PREVENTION
Volume 11, Issue 4, Pages 377-386

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00008469-200208000-00010

Keywords

benign; brain tumours; cordless telephones; malignant; mobile telephones; temporal area

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Microwave exposure from the use of cellular telephones has been discussed in recent years as a potential risk factor for brain tumours. We included in a case-control study 1617 patients aged 20-80 years of both sexes with brain tumour diagnosed between 1 January 1997 and 30 June 2000. They were alive at the study time and had histo pathologically verified brain tumour. One matched control to each case was selected from the Swedish Population Register. The study area was the Uppsala-Orebro, Stockholm, Linkoping and Goteborg medical regions of Sweden. Exposure was assessed by a questionnaire that was answered by 1429 (88%) cases and 1470 (91%) controls. In total, use of analogue cellular telephones gave an increased risk with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.3 (95% confidence interval (0) 1.02-1.6). With a tumour induction period of >10 years the risk increased further: OR 1.8 (95% Cl 1.1-2.9). No clear association was found for digital or cordless telephones. With regard to the anatomical area of the tumour and exposure to microwaves, the risk was increased for tumours located in the temporal area on the same side of the brain that was used during phone calls; for analogue cellular telephones the OR was 2.5 (95% CI 1.3-4.9). Use of a telephone on the opposite side of the brain was not associated with an increased risk for brain tumours. With regard to different tumour types, the highest risk was for acoustic neurinoma (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.8-6.8) among analogue cellular telephone users. (C) 2002 Lippincott Williams Wilkins.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available