No link between infant cancer and phone masts: study
The largest study of its kind to date said today that pregnant women who live near a mobile phone mast do not run a higher risk of having a child who develops leukaemia or other cancer in infancy.
The study was published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ), which says parents-to-be should be reassured.
The investigation looked at 1,397 children across Britain who developed cancer by the age of five between 1999 and 2001.
The tots were each matched against four healthy counterparts by sex and date of birth, who were selected from Britain's national birth register.
The researchers then obtained data on all 76,890 mobile (also called cell) phone relays in Britain from 1996 to 2001. Using the child's household address, they calculated the level of electromagnetic radiation to which the home's occupants would have been exposed from the phone mast.
Children with cancer were no likelier to have a birth address near a radio antenna than those who were healthy, they found.
"People are worried that living near a mobile phone mast might affect their children's health," said Paul Elliott, a professor at Imperial College London who led the study.
"We looked at this question with respect to risk of cancers in young children. We found no pattern to suggest that the children of mums living near a base station during pregnancy had a greater risk of developing cancer than those who lived elsewhere."
The researchers said their work cast the widest data net so far in exploring the feared link between early childhood cancer and phone masts.
The scare has spread in Britain thanks to apparent clusters of cancers near phone relay stations.
These clusters are hard to evaluate but may be skewed by faulty or selective data -- in other words, when and where the cases occurred may have been random rather than a pattern, the BMJ paper said.
The authors cautioned that they were unable to get information about individual exposure among mothers-to-be to a mobile phone handset. Electromagnetic radiation from a handset during conversation is many times higher than that from a phone mast.
And they added the predictable caveat that their focus was only on early childhood cancers, not on cancers that develop in later phases of life.
In an editorial published by the BMJ, Oxford University specialist John Bithell said doctors should tell patients not to worry about living close to mobile phone masts.
"Moving away from a mast, with all its stresses and costs, cannot be justified on health grounds in the light of current evidence," Bithell said.
Last month, a large ongoing study said it found no evidence of any increased risk from mobile phone handsets among more than 5,000 people in 13 countries who had been diagnosed with brain tumours.
The Interphone study added, though, that further research was needed, given the increasingly intensive use of mobile phones among young people.
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Second group of migrants arrives
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
11 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Peter G Xuereb
Jun 22nd 2010, 23:29
Yet another Times report on yet another purportedly reassuring study carried out under conditions that do not mimic the conditions in Malta (such as proximity to dwellings of the masts in question). Can these reports be so timed as to 'coincide' with a pending court case aimed at enforcing the precautionary principle over masts erected within FOUR metres of clusters of bedrooms! ? Only in Malta! The studies are inconclusive, there remains evidence of potential harm, the operators continue to do business as long as the legislator does not spell things out, in black and white with knobs on, the potential harmed are accused of the nimby (not in my back yard) syndrome, the majority take the "alanimby" line (as long as not in my backyard)! But common sense, reasonableness and the rights of the citizen will triumph! One puts ones faith in the courts of law, and in the politicians who are showing concern.
George Debono
Jun 22nd 2010, 17:30
Funny how people worry about what they can see - thus highly visible mobile antennae stir fears of adverse effects when there is no evidence of this.
Most people are so attached to - and dependent on - their handsets that they are in denial of the fact that the radiation from these is many magnitudes higher than what one could ever get from an antenna. If there is any danger then it is from the handheld set and not from the antenna.
One proven danger is use a mobile phone while driving - there is an increased likelihood of a crash resulting in injury. Using a hands-free phone is not any safer.
And then there is the question of traffic pollution which is invisible but lethal - especially benzene and fine particles from diesel engines, exposure to which has been shown over and over again to be a cause of premature death from cancer, & heart and lung disease - and yet nobody worries…
For more info see part IV of the report "Towards a Low Carbon Society - the Nation's Health, Energy Security and Fossil Fuels" available from http://www.tppi.org.mt/cms/index.php/reports .
Marianna Galea Xuereb
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:58
Who exactly funded this “research”?
“The investigation looked at 1,397 children across Britain who developed cancer by the age of five between 1999 and 2001.” Are these unfortunate 1,397 children a randomly (or perhaps conveniently) selected sample of cancer victims across Britain or the whole set? Moreover, I think it would be more useful to investigate the link between radio frequency radiation and any type of cancer that develops in people before they are thirty years old. Additionally, one needs to investigate the link between (1) exposure while inside the mother’s womb (2) parental exposure to radiation during the years before the pre-conception period (3) Exposure to radiation by the mother while she was still an embryo/fetus inside her mum and not just exposure after birth of any particular child.
“The tots were each matched against four healthy counterparts …..” How exactly was the sample of “healthy counterparts” selected?
“Children with cancer were no likelier to have a birth address near a radio antenna than those who were healthy”.
What exactly is meant by “birth address”? Most babies in the U.K. are born in a hospital....
Marius Zulgis
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:37
This is just one study of hundreds carried out in the last few years some for and some against. Whilst there is no concrete proof of a link between masts and serious diseases I for one would not be happy to have someone I care for living within 400m of one, proof or no proof.
C. Muscat
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:32
The radiation in Malta is so much near residences that even if it is true that no harm is done I regret to have one near me. One has to add that if this study says that some ailment cannot be associated with the masts but one cannot say that no harm is done and all health hazards are excluded. If this is so, how is it that the providers pay a good amount every year to whoever accepts the mast. Unfortunately, the neighbours take only the radiation and it is good to be assured by the authorities that within three metres or less it is safe to use your own private roof under these masts.
J. Debono
Jun 22nd 2010, 17:04
The developing foetus, is the being most sensitive to carcinogenic substances/radiation.
Even a single X-Ray can harm a foetus, however a single X-ray will never give us cancer, we need multiple X-rays to have an increased risk.
So it is quite safe to extrapolate, that since the radiation from a mast cell does no harm to a foetus, it is even more harmless to us, though yes I agree, further studies should be done.
P Pace Balzan
Jun 22nd 2010, 14:52
It should be mentioned that there are other accredited studies (lots of them) which report serious health hazards.
R Micallef
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:14
I hope you are not referring to the Youtube egg experiment !! IMO it is better to have lots of repeaters with very low trasmission (like we have in Malta) than a few high powered masts.
l tabone
Jun 22nd 2010, 15:44
like what? any proofs?
Mike Pace
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:01
There are just as many studies linking skin cancer to sun exposure...
M.Cachia
Jun 22nd 2010, 16:34
Could you please reference some of these studies?