Skip to main content
You're viewing the free public version. Create a free account for full research and member tools. Join free
Research Abstract Human Study

This study confirmed previous results demonstrating an association between mobile and cordless phone use and acoustic neuroma.

Pooled analysis of case-control studies on acoustic neuroma diagnosed 1997-2003 and 2007-2009 and use of mobile and cordless phones.

0:00 / 0:00
0:00 / 0:00

Sign in to access this feature

Create a free account or sign in to use AI summaries, listen to articles, download PDFs, and save to your library.

76 views
Share:

Abstract

We previously conducted a case-control study of acoustic neuroma. Subjects of both genders aged 20-80 years, diagnosed during 1997-2003 in parts of Sweden, were included, and the results were published. We have since made a further study for the time period 2007-2009 including both men and women aged 18-75 years selected from throughout the country. These new results for acoustic neuroma have not been published to date. Similar methods were used for both study periods. In each, one population-based control, matched on gender and age (within five years), was identified from the Swedish Population Registry. Exposures were assessed by a self-administered questionnaire supplemented by a phone interview. Since the number of acoustic neuroma cases in the new study was low we now present pooled results from both study periods based on 316 participating cases and 3,530 controls. Unconditional logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusting for age, gender, year of diagnosis and socio-economic index (SEI). Use of mobile phones of the analogue type gave odds ratio (OR) = 2.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.0-4.3, increasing with>20 years latency (time since first exposure) to OR = 7.7, 95% CI = 2.8-21. Digital 2G mobile phone use gave OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1, increasing with latency>15 years to an OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 0.8-4.2. The results for cordless phone use were OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.1, and, for latency of>20 years, OR = 6.5, 95% CI = 1.7-26. Digital type wireless phones (2G and 3G mobile phones and cordless phones) gave OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.1-2.0 increasing to OR = 8.1, 95% CI = 2.0-32 with latency>20 years. For total wireless phone use, the highest risk was calculated for the longest latency time>20 years: OR = 4.4, 95% CI = 2.2-9.0. Several of the calculations in the long latency category were based on low numbers of exposed cases. Ipsilateral use resulted in a higher risk than contralateral for both mobile and cordless phones. OR increased per 100 h cumulative use and per year of latency for mobile phones and cordless phones, though the increase was not statistically significant for cordless phones. The percentage tumour volume increased per year of latency and per 100 h of cumulative use, statistically significant for analogue phones. This study confirmed previous results demonstrating an association between mobile and cordless phone use and acoustic neuroma.

Affiliation

Lennart Hardell

External References

PubMed ID:
23877578

Comments

Sign in or create a free account to join the conversation.

Sign in to comment

Be the first to comment.

More Research Abstracts

View All Abstracts
Review

This review yielded a pattern of an increased risk for glioma and acoustic neuroma after more than 10 years mobile phone use. The authors conclude that current standard for exposure to microwaves during mobile phone use is not safe for long-term exposure.

Aug 1, 2009 Lennart Hardell, Michael Carlberg, Kjell Hansson Mild

Pathophysiology

Trusted By Professionals and Teams:

The National Health Federation
Stand For Health Freedom
Global Healing Institute
Global Wellness Forum
MAHA Action
Myers Detox
Natural News
Mercola.com

Unlock Evidence-Based Health Research

Join 500,000+ members accessing 10,000+ natural health topics.

Subscribe to our informative Newsletter & Receive

Cancer Fighting Foods Ebook

Our newsletter serves 500,000 with essential news, research & healthy tips, daily.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.