Recent research studies show a significant correlation between the hours that a mobile phone is used and motility⁰ of sperm. Exciting news – unless you’re a sperm. Quite clear connections are shown between the radiation of phones and poor sperm.
I’m telling you that the phone damages your ability to have children. Maybe, globally that is a very good thing: anything that lowers the birth rate is good. For each individual this sounds like a disaster; how much of a disaster depends on your culture.
I didn’t say possession of a phone was the problem, I said it was the use of one. I didn’t explain what use causes damage, nor how that damage occurs, nor how much damage occurs. Indeed, tying the information down to answer some of those questions is very difficult.
Suppose I gave you more detail and said that hands-free users are more at risk because they keep the phone nearer their gonads?
Did I tell you that phone radiation damages people? If using the phone damages your sperm, presumably it damages your brains too?
There’s a difference between a statement that says the radiation from a phone does (physical, medical, provable) damage to people and telling you that holding the phone to your ear is frying your brains, even though that might be true.
Let’s look at a few of these issues.
None of the studies I found explained where the phone was physically kept, but we might assume that the inverse square law applies, so keeping the phone in your pants pocket is less good for your sperm than keeping it in your breast pocket. The studies didn’t make clear that it is phone radiation that is the problem; they said that was what they were studying. Let’s assume that the radiation is the problem.
When does the radiation occur? Your phone is receiving signal when it is on, so we might assume that the worst-case scenario is when the phone is transmitting signal, that is when you are making a call. It may be true that just carrying a phone that is on does damage; I didn’t find any useful statements. If it is the call that does the damage (see footnote ⁶), then at the moment of risk, we have two likely states:
(i) the phone is in your hand, probably at your ear and the radiation is a long way from your testes (but the evidence says damage is done at this range).
(ii) You’re using some sort of hands-free kit, so the transmitting part is elsewhere. If it is in your pocket, this is around ten times worse for your nether regions. If you’re hands-free in a car, it is about an arm’s length away from all the relevant parts of your body and just a little better⁴.
The British Medical Journal⁷ says:
Evidence of detrimental effect of mobile phones on male fertility is still equivocal as studies have revealed a wide spectrum of possible effects ranging from insignificant effects to variable degrees of testicular damage. Although previous studies suggested a role of cell phone use in male infertility, the mode of action of EMW emitted from cell phones on the male reproductive system is still unclear. EMW can affect the reproductive system via an EMW-specific effect, thermal molecular effect or combination of both. Studies performed on human males are scarce and therefore further studies with a careful design are needed to determine the effect of cell phone use on male fertilising potential.
So they’re not saying it doesn’t happen, they are saying how it happens is not yet understood – the mode of action … is still unclear. So it is more likely to be what you do with the phone, or some associated behaviour.
Having googled “correlation mobile use infertility” 1,2,3,5,6, I tried swapping ‘fertility’ for the wider ‘health’. A combination of Bristol, Berne and Basle universities⁸ tells us:
The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radio frequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.
This is a search across the published work (is that meta-work, then?) so should be a good source of material. It shows, I think, that the evidence presented is heavily biased, but one comment stood out:
The National Radiological Protection Board reviewed studies of health effects from radio frequency (RF) fields and concluded that scientific evidence regarding effects of RF field exposure from mobile phones on human brain activity and cognitive function […] has included results both supporting and against the hypothesis of an effect.
Which is pretty unhelpful; RF fields do and do not affect your brains. How can that be? Perhaps the message here is that the science is bad, or that whatever is being measured is not the right thing (which to me is the same complaint, bad science).
I found an article in the Lancet⁹ which may point towards asking the right questions; what effect is produced by a phone that might damage humans? Is it radio-frequency electro-magnetic waves (RF-EMW in the literature), is it micro-wave heating (is that different?)? Is it the pulsed nature of these waves that has a secondary effect because it is similar to some of our biologic functions? Would we be aware if a phone’s radiation-proofing was failing?
One question I posed in class was whether we knew where a phone radiated and the class yesterday thought that idea of having a ‘right’ or ‘best’ way to hold a phone10 was laughably funny (yes, they laughed at that far more than at some of the things I thought were genuinely funny, it’s obviously the way I (don’t) tell them).
I found a patent application, US 6741215 B2, dated 2004, to put the aerial on the bottom of the phone. This would fry the glands in your neck instead of your brains (if frying occurs). A good idea, in that it deals directly with a perceived problem. I found others, such as 7383067 B2 in 2008, detailing where to place the components to reduce biologic damage, such as moving the antenna circuit to the bottom. I found far more evidence of the damage humans do to the signal than I did of the damage the signal does to people, such as [11] which tells us that the user's hand affects not only the impedance matching of the antenna, but also the radiation characteristics including radiation patterns and efficiency.
I suspect that phone design accommodates the way we hold phones, not that we should accommodate how the phone works. It would still seem sensible to me to understand where the phone radiates¹². If you’re not frying your brains with microwave radiation, are you damaging your hand, or your fingers? I failed to find an answer, but the pictures I found suggest to me that the radiation is directed away from the “biological scatterer”¹³ and that the antenna effects will be at the two ends of the phone.
It is hard to find rational, detailed argument. The Independent¹⁴ (IoS=Independent on Sunday) of 30March2008 (20080330) is a fair example of stuff that makes you wonder if you should be having a panic, making out that phones are more deadly than cancer. Long version below, at 14.
Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award- winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation. The study...draws on growing evidence ... that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long. Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon ... reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He ... concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours”. Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds:... "It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking". [He said..] his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.
So what are you going to do about it?
DJS 20131126
I’ve raised a load of questions in writing this and I do not have good answers. Any contribution you can make would be appreciated – and probably included. I’m not prepared to allow blog roll to occur, but on the rare occasions that people respond, I do modify content to reflect the interaction.
I point out—yet again—that correlation neither proves nor shows causation.
I am embarrassed that so long has passed since the last new entry. Clearly working too hard.
Picture from eliehouse.wordpress.com; Wifi laptops affect male fertility, 20110405
Phrying - phone frier, iPhone frying, hence iPhry.
0 Motility - the capacity for motion for gametes (and cells and single-celled organisms).
1 http://w.milieuziektes.nl/Rapporten/wdowiak.pdf
Abstract: The problem of the lack of offspring is a phenomenon concerning approximately 15% of married couples in Poland. Infertility is defined as inability to conceive after a year of sexual intercourses without the use of contraceptives. In half of the cases the causative factor is the male. Males are exposed to the effect of various environmental factors, which may decrease their reproductive capabilities. A decrease in male fertility is a phenomenon which occurs within years, which may suggest that one of the reasons for the decrease in semen parameters is the effect of the development of techniques in the surrounding environment. A hazardous effect on male fertility may be manifested by a decrease in the amount of sperm cells, disorders in their mobility, as well as structure. The causative agents may be chemical substances, ionizing radiation, stress, as well as electromagnetic waves. The objective of the study was the determination of the effect of the usage of cellular phones on the fertility of males subjected to marital infertility therapy. The following groups were selected from among 304 males covered by the study: Group A: 99 patients who did not use mobile phones, Group B: 157 males who have used GSM equipment sporadically for the period of 1-2 years, and Group C: 48 people who have been regularly using mobile phone for more than 2 years. In the analysis of the effect of GSM equipment on the semen it was noted that an increase in the percentage of sperm cells of abnormal morphology is associated with the duration of exposure to the waves emitted by the GSM phone. It was also confirmed that a decrease in the percentage of sperm cells in vital progressing motility in the semen is correlated with the frequency of using mobile phones.
2 http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006446
Principal Findings Purified human spermatozoa were exposed to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation (RF-EMR) tuned to 1.8 GHz and covering a range of specific absorption rates (SAR) from 0.4 W/kg to 27.5 W/kg. In step with increasing SAR, motility and vitality were significantly reduced after RF-EMR exposure, while the mitochondrial generation of reactive oxygen species and DNA fragmentation were significantly elevated (P<0.001). Furthermore, we also observed highly significant relationships between SAR, the oxidative DNA damage bio-marker, 8-OH-dG, and DNA fragmentation after RF-EMR exposure.
Conclusions RF-EMR in both the power density and frequency range of mobile phones enhances mitochondrial reactive oxygen species generation by human spermatozoa, decreasing the motility and vitality of these cells while stimulating DNA base adduct formation and, ultimately DNA fragmentation. These findings have clear implications for the safety of extensive mobile phone use by males of reproductive age, potentially affecting both their fertility and the health and wellbeing of their offspring.
3 http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(07)00332-9/abstract
Objective To investigate the effect of cell phone use on various markers of semen quality.
Observational study at an Infertility clinic.
361 men undergoing infertility evaluation were divided into four groups according to their active cell phone use: group A: no use; group B: <2 h/day; group C: 2–4 h/day; and group D: >4 h/day.
Main Outcome Measure(s) Sperm parameters (volume, liquefaction time, pH, viscosity, sperm count, motility, viability, and morphology).
Result(s) The comparisons of mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology among four different cell phone user groups were statistically significant. Mean sperm motility, viability, and normal morphology were significantly different in cell phone user groups within two sperm count groups. The laboratory values of the above four sperm parameters decreased in all 4 cell-phone user groups as the duration of daily exposure to cell-phones increased.
Conclusion(s) Use of cell-phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.
4 inverse square law: pocket 15-30 cm from groin, ear around 75 cm from groin, so pocket is 6-25 times worse. That distance is less if you’re seated, more like 60cm, so 4 to 16 times worse. We probably ought to use a geometric mean, so rounding the resulting 12 and 8 to 10 makes sense; it’s that order of magnitude we want: radiation from a radiating phone is ten times as bad when it is in your pocket as when it is next to your ear; that STILL doesn’t say whether (i) the phone is a significantly bigger risk when it is being used as a phone nor (ii) whether frying your brains is worse than frying your fertility. Your arm is about the same length as ear to groin and the position of a phone in a car may leave similar distances to both bits of the body. At best, you’ve traded 60cm for 75-80 cm, so 50-75% improvement.
Worst case for fertility: having a hands-free conversation with the base unit (the transmitting mobile) in your pocket. On the other hand, at least you’ll still understand why, ‘cos your brains still work.
5 http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/014850190924520
IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CELL PHONE USE AND SEMEN QUALITY?
2005, Vol. 51, No. 5 , Pages 385-393 (doi:10.1080/014850190924520)
I Fejes1†, Z. Závaczki1, J. Szöllősi1, S. Koloszár1, J. Daru1, L. Kovács1 and A. Pál1
This study was conducted to determine a possible relationship between regular cell phone use and different human semen attributes. The history-taking of men in our university clinic was supplemented with questions concerning cell phone use habits, including possession, daily standby position and daily transmission times. Semen analyses were performed by conventional methods. Statistics were calculated with SPSS statistical software. A total of 371 were included in the study. The duration of possession and the daily transmission time correlated negatively with the proportion of rapid progressive motile sperm (r = − 0.12 and r = − 0.19, respectively), and positively with the proportion of slow progressive motile sperm (r = 0.12 and r = 0.28, respectively). The low and high transmitter groups also differed in the proportion of rapid progressive motile sperm (48.7% vs. 40.6%). The prolonged use of cell phones may have negative effects on the sperm motility characteristics.
[DJS comments: these are pretty low correlations, even for the relatively large sample size. It suggests that the correlation is weak or indirect.
6 http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(08)03356-6/abstract
Effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) from cellular phones on human ejaculated semen: an in vitro pilot study
Objective To evaluate effects of cellular phone radio-frequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMW) during talk mode on unprocessed (neat) ejaculated human semen.
Setting Center for reproductive medicine laboratory in tertiary hospital setting.
Samples Neat semen samples from normal healthy donors (n = 23) and infertile patients (n = 9).
Intervention(s) After liquefaction, neat semen samples were divided into two aliquots. One aliquot (experimental) from each patient was exposed to cellular phone radiation (in talk mode) for 1 h, and the second aliquot (unexposed) served as the control sample under identical conditions.
Main Outcome Measure(s) Evaluation of sperm parameters (motility, viability), reactive oxygen species (ROS), total antioxidant capacity (TAC) of semen, ROS-TAC score, and sperm DNA damage.
Result(s) Samples exposed to RF-EMW showed a significant decrease in sperm motility and viability, increase in ROS level, and decrease in ROS-TAC score. Levels of TAC and DNA damage showed no significant differences from the unexposed group.
Conclusion(s) Radio-frequency electromagnetic waves emitted from cell phones may lead to oxidative stress in human semen. We speculate that keeping the cell phone in a trouser pocket in talk mode may negatively affect spermatozoa and impair male fertility.
7 The BMJ http://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(10)60338-0/abstract
There has been a tremendous increase in the use of mobile phones in the past decade and concerns are growing about the possible hazardous effects of radio-frequency electromagnetic waves (EMW) emitted by these devices on human health. Preliminary studies, though with limitations in study design, suggest a possible link between cell phone use and infertility. A recent study found that use of cell phones adversely affects the quality of semen by decreasing the sperm counts, motility, viability and morphology. Evidence of detrimental effect of mobile phones on male fertility is still equivocal as studies have revealed a wide spectrum of possible effects ranging from insignificant effects to variable degrees of testicular damage. Although previous studies suggested a role of cell phone use in male infertility, the mode of action of EMW emitted from cell phones on the male reproductive system is still unclear. EMW can affect the reproductive system via an EMW-specific effect, thermal molecular effect or combination of both. Studies performed on human males are scarce and therefore further studies with a careful design are needed to determine the effect of cell phone use on male-fertilizing potential.
8 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1413-81232008000300022&script=sci_arttext&tlng=pt
Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies
Anke HussI; Matthias EggerI, II; Kerstin HugIII; Karin Huwiler-MüntenerI; Martin RöösliI
University of Berne, University of Bristol, University of Basle, Switzerland
There is concern regarding the possible health effects of cellular telephone use. We conducted a systematic review of studies of controlled exposure to radiofrequency radiation with health-related outcomes (electroencephalogram, cognitive or cardiovascular function, hormone levels, symptoms, and subjective well-being). We searched Embase, Medline, and a specialist database in February 2005 and scrutinized reference lists from relevant publications. Data on the source of funding, study design, methodologic quality, and other study characteristics were extracted. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one statistically significant association between the exposure and a health-related outcome. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models. Of 59 studies, 12 (20%) were funded exclusively by the telecommunications industry, 11 (19%) were funded by public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had mixed funding (including industry), and in 22 (37%) the source of funding was not reported. Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a statistically significant result. The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.
We examined the methodologic quality and results of experimental studies investigating the effects of the type of radiofrequency radiation emitted by handheld cellular telephones. We hypothesized that studies would be less likely to show an effect of the exposure if funded by the telecommunications industry, which has a vested interest in portraying the use of mobile phones as safe. We found that the studies funded exclusively by industry were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects on a range of end points that may be relevant to health. Our findings add to the existing evidence that single-source sponsorship is associated with outcomes that favor the sponsors' products5,14-16. Most previous studies of this issue were based on studies of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drug treatments. A recent systematic review and meta-analysis showed that studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry were approximately four times more likely to have outcomes favoring the sponsor's drug than studies with other sources of funding15. The influence of the tobacco industry on the research it funded has also been investigated17-19. To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine this issue in the context of exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Our study has several limitations. We restricted our analysis to human laboratory studies. This resulted in a more homogenous set of studies, but may have reduced the statistical power to demonstrate or exclude smaller associations. The WHO has identified the need for further studies of this type to clarify the effects of radiofrequency exposure on neuroendocrine, neurologic, and immune systems20. We considered including epidemiologic studies but found that practically all of them were publicly funded. The study's primary outcome - the reporting of statistically significant associations - is a crude measure that ignores the size of reported effects. However, we found the same trends when assessing the authors' conclusions in the abstracts. Although we have shown an association between sponsorship and results, it remains unclear which type of funding leads to the most accurate estimates of the effects of radiofrequency radiation. For example, if researchers with an environmentalist agenda are more likely to be funded by public agencies or charities, then their bias may result in an overestimation of effects. Interestingly, studies with mixed funding were of the highest quality. The National Radiological Protection Board21 reviewed studies of health effects from radiofrequency (RF) fields and concluded that scientific evidence regarding effects of RF field exposure from mobile phones on human brain activity and cognitive function […] has included results both supporting and against the hypothesis of an effect. We found that the source of funding explains some of the heterogeneity in the results from different studies. The association was robust and little affected by potential confounding factors such as sample size, study design, or quality. Possible explanations for the association between source of funding and results have been discussed in the context of clinical research sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry5,15, 22. The association could reflect the selective publication of studies that produced results that fitted the sponsor's agenda. Sponsors might influence the design of the study, the nature of the exposure, and the type of outcomes assessed. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the only factor that strongly predicted the reporting of statistically significant effects was whether or not the study was funded exclusively by industry. We stress that our ability to control for potential confounding factors may have been hampered by the incomplete reporting of relevant study characteristics. Medical and science journals are implementing policies that require authors to disclose their financial and other conflicts of interest. None of the articles examined here included such a statement, in line with a survey of science and medical journals that showed that adopting such policies does not generally lead to the publication of disclosure statements23. A review of 2005 instructions to authors showed that 15 (48%) of the 31 journals included in our study had conflict of interest policies. Our results support the notion that disclosure statements should be published, including statements indicating the absence of conflicts of interest. The role of the funding source in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of the study should also be addressed. There is widespread concern regarding the possible health effects associated with the use of cellular phones, mobile telephone base stations, or broadcasting transmitters. Most (68%) of the studies assessed here reported biologic effects. At present it is unclear whether these biologic effects translate into relevant health hazards. Reports from national and international bodies have recently concluded that further research efforts are needed, and dedicated research programs have been set up in the United States, Germany, Denmark, Hungary, Switzerland, and Japan. Our study indicates that the interpretation of the results from existing and future studies of the health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.
9 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(00)03243-8/fulltext
Physics and biology of mobile telephony
GJ Hyland PhD a
Although safety guidelines—to which mobile telephones and their base-stations conform—do protect against excessive microwave heating, there is evidence that the low intensity, pulsed radiation currently used can exert subtle non-thermal influences. If these influences entail adverse health consequences, current guidelines would be inadequate. This review will focus on this possibility. The radiation used is indeed of very low intensity, but an oscillatory similitude between this pulsed microwave radiation and certain electrochemical activities of the living human being should prompt concern. However, being so inherently dependent on aliveness, non-thermal effects cannot be expected to be as robust as thermal ones, as is indeed found; nor can everyone be expected to be affected in the same way by exposure to the same radiation. Notwithstanding uncertainty about whether the non-thermal influences reported do adversely affect health, there are consistencies between some of these effects and the neurological problems reported by some mobile-telephone users and people exposed long-term to base-station radiation. These should be pointers for future research.
11 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mop.21699/abstract Abstract
User's hand effects on an electromagnetic-compatible (EMC) internal dual-band mobile phone antenna for GSM/DCS operation are studied. The EMC internal antenna can be placed in direct contact with nearby conducting elements, without degradation in the antenna performances. Experimental and simulation studies are conducted to analyze the user's hand effects on this EMC antenna. Obtained results indicate that the user's hand affects not only the impedance matching of the antenna, but also the radiation characteristics including radiation patterns and efficiency. Effects of different positions of the user's hand holding the mobile phone are also analyzed and discussed. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Microwave Opt Technol Lett 48: 1563–1569, 2006; Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI 10.1002/mop.21699
12 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21995116 Duodecim. 2011;127(17):1788-96.
[Mobile phones radiate--risk to the health?]. [Article in Finnish]
Jokela K, Auvinen A, Hämäläinen H.
The mobile phones radiate electromagnetic energy which is partly absorbed into the tissues in the vicinity of the phone. The minor heating, in maximum up to 0.3 degrees C, may cause some alterations in the expression of genes and proteins similar to physiological response to other stimuli. Biophysical studies at the cellular and molecular level have not revealed any well-established interaction mechanism, through which mobile phone radiation could induce toxic effects below the thermal effect level. Research results on various biological effects in vitro and in vivo are continuously published but there is no consistent evidence on well-established harmful effects. The mobile phone radiation is not carcinogenic for experimental animals or genotoxic for cells. According to epidemiological studies and psychophysiological brain function studies the use of mobile phones does not seem to increase the risk of tumors in the head and brain or disturb the function of central nervous system. However, there is a need for more research on the long-term effects of mobile phone radiation particularly on children.
13 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=686765&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.jsp%3Farnumber%3D686765
explores the design criteria for antenna structures with improved radiation efficiency while operating in close vicinity to a biological scatterer are investigated.
14 Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking’
Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation
By Geoffrey Lean Sunday, 30 March 2008
Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award- winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.
The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.
It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.
Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.
He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.
Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.
"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.
Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".
