Hardell L, Carlberg M, Mild KH.

Case-control study of the association between the use of cellular and cordless telephones and malignant brain tumors diagnosed during 2000-2003
Environ Res. 2006 Feb;100(2):232-41.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16023098

Hardell L, Carlberg M, Mild KH.
Department of Oncology, University Hospital, SE-701 85 Orebro, Sweden.
Handy

Abstract
We performed a case-control study on the use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for brain tumors diagnosed during 2000-2003. We report the results for malignant brain tumors with data from 317 cases (88%) and 692 controls (84%). The use of analog cellular phones yielded odds ratio (OR) of 2.6 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 1.5-4.3, increasing to OR=3.5 and 95% CI=2.0-6.4 with a >10-year latency period. Regarding digital cellular telephones, the corresponding results were OR=1.9, 95% CI=1.3-2.7 and OR=3.6, 95% CI=1.7-7.5, respectively. Cordless telephones yielded OR=2.1, 95% CI=1.4-3.0, and with a >10-year latency period, OR=2.9, 95% CI=1.6-5.2. The OR increased with the cumulative number of hours of use and was highest for high-grade astrocytoma. A somewhat increased risk was also found for low-grade astrocytoma and other types of malignant brain tumors, although not significantly so. In multivariate analysis, all three phone types studied showed an increased risk.

Comment
Interesting and amusing is the reply of L. Hardell and K.H. Mild to the publication “Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the interphone case–control study in five North European countries” given in 2006: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361400/#bib9

“We are surprised that the authors (inserted: Schoemaker et al, 2005) claim that our first study (Hardell et al, 2002, 2003a, 2003b) has been ‘heavily criticised for methodological limitations'. They give reference to five short comments or reports, two published in 2000 and 2001 (Rothman, 2000, 2001), thus even before our publication! The report by Boice and McLaughlin (2002) has never been published in a prereview journal and they are employed at an institute that has been linked to Motorola (Hardell, 2004). The other two references include authors of the Interphone study, thus merely themselves. No information is given in the paper (Schoemaker et al, 2005) regarding our ‘methodological limitations', so we compare standard epidemiological methods in the Interphone study and our studies (same methods were used in our two studies).”
[Authors of Schoemaker et al, 2005 belong to the private club ICNIRP – which is close to industry ]

Studien

Studien alphabetisch

Suchen nach

Allgemein