Does using a mobile phone cause brain cancer?
August 23, 2016 Source: Bio Valley
Window._bd_share_config={ "common":{ "bdSnsKey":{ },"bdText":"","bdMini":"2","bdMiniList":false,"bdPic":"","bdStyle":" 0","bdSize":"16"},"share":{ }};with(document)0[(getElementsByTagName('head')[0]||body).appendChild(createElement('script')) .src='http://bdimg.share.baidu.com/static/api/js/share.js?v=89860593.js?cdnversion='+~(-new Date()/36e5)];This is a question that any mobile phone user would like to answer, and science does provide some clues. For example, in 2011, the International Agency for Research and Research (IARC) classified mobile phone radiation as a possible human carcinogen, belonging to Level 2B.
This classification is based primarily on evidence obtained from population studies. A study conducted by the EU-funded INTERPHONE group and another study led by Swedish epidemiologist L. Hardell showed glioma (a malignant) among people who used their mobile phones for 30 minutes every day for 10 years. The risk of brain cancer is increased by 40%-170%.
The idea that cell phone radiation increases cancer risk is further confirmed in two other studies: the Cerennat study published in 2013 confirmed the observations of the INTERPHONE study and the Hardell study, and an animal study in 2015 showed that cell phone radiation increased the carcinogenicity of chemicals. effect.
This evidence suggests that cell phone radiation is indeed "possibly carcinogenic" to humans (belonging to Class 2B of the IARC classification) or even "probably carcinogenic" (belonging to Class 2A of the IARC classification).
IARC classifies drugs that are carcinogenic to humans as carcinogenic (level 1), likely to be carcinogenic (level 2A), and may be carcinogenic (level 2B) and cannot be classified as carcinogenic ( Notclassifiableascarcinogen, level 3) and probably not carcinogenic (probably not carcinogenic, level 4).
However, other studies have shown that the number of people suffering from brain cancer has not been affected by the frequency of mobile phone use or has only increased slightly, although the number of mobile phone users has increased significantly over the past 10 to 20 years.
Therefore, there is a contradiction between the evidence that the increased risk of brain cancer is found to be fairly stable in the incidence of brain cancer in people who use mobile phones.
Which view is correct?
It is believed that the case-control study confirming the causal link between brain cancer and cell phone radiation is correct. The researchers point out that it is still too early to observe an obvious increase in the incidence of brain cancer in the general population. After all, this type of cancer has a long delay period (several years), and people have only started using mobile phones in large numbers during the past 10 to 15 years. Because before that, they were too expensive.
At the same time, the researchers support the evidence that there is no significant increase in the incidence of brain cancer in populations with significantly increased use of mobile phones, and the evidence from these case-control studies is a statistical failure.
But what if both views are correct? What if the cell phone radiation alone does not cause cancer, but long-term exposure will increase the carcinogenic effects of other factors? One of the following assumptions may explain this apparent inconsistency.
Animal studies evaluated by IARC experts in 2011 suggest that cell phone radiation alone does not cause cancer. However, it may still have "co-carcinogen" properties. In five studies, cell phone radiation increased while exposure to cancer in animals with low doses of known chemical carcinogens. One of the five studies has recently been reproduced, confirming this auxiliary carcinogenic effect of cell phone radiation. To date, only a small number of studies have explored the simultaneous exposure of animals or living cells to chemical carcinogens and cell phone radiation. This poses a serious problem for a suitable risk assessment.
Based on current research, cell phone radiation itself may not cause cancer. Instead, it may activate the regulatory process and accelerate cancer.
Using this assumption, it is possible to explain some of these unexplained conflicting scientific results.
For the first time, case-control studies have found that increasing the risk of brain cancer may not be due to cell phone radiation, but because it accelerates brain cancer caused by other carcinogens or spontaneous genetic mutations.
Second, the incidence of brain cancer is lower than the higher mobile phone usage, because these increases are only due to the auxiliary carcinogenic effects of cell phone radiation. Not all mobile phone users are at risk of developing brain cancer, only those who are causing brain cancer development due to other carcinogenic or genetic factors.
Finally, the first batch of results from an animal study conducted by the National Toxicology Program in May 2016 showed that there was no brain cancer in the control group, while the experimental group receiving mobile phone radiation had very few cases of brain cancer. .
In view of the small number of brain cancer cases caused by rats only touching cell phone radiation and cell phone radiation, some people question the significance of this observation. But the assumptions presented above explain this result. Some of the animals that receive cell phone radiation are suffering from brain cancer, not just because of cell phone radiation, but because it accelerates cancer caused by spontaneous genetic mutations. In control rats, brain cancer, also caused by spontaneous mutations, did not occur in time because no additional stimuli accelerated cancer production.
Brain cancer risk is still low
Assuming that this assumption is correct, cell phone radiation does not have a serious impact on public health as suggested by some epidemiological studies. Not all mobile phone users are at risk of developing brain cancer. Those who have only been exposed to carcinogenic factors or who have spontaneous genetic mutations will be at risk of developing this cancer.
This proposed hypothesis does not deny that IARC classifies cell phone radiation as "may be carcinogenic." The IARC classification indicates that avid mobile phone users increase the risk of developing cancer. But this is not to say that cell phone radiation is a "carcinogen" or "helper carcinogen."
Therefore, this assumption does not include the mobile phone in the health list. However, it suggests that a brain cancer epidemic is unlikely to occur, but its incidence may increase slightly.
Dry Spices,Star Anise Seed Powder,Star Anise Granule,Tasty Star Anise
Chinese Seasoning (Shandong) Trading Co.,Ltd , https://www.zt-trading.com