{"id":13420,"date":"2018-11-14T09:40:19","date_gmt":"2018-11-14T09:40:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/?p=13420"},"modified":"2018-11-14T09:40:19","modified_gmt":"2018-11-14T09:40:19","slug":"latest-how-mobile-phones-cause-cancer-depression","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/?p=13420","title":{"rendered":"Latest: How mobile phones cause cancer, depression"},"content":{"rendered":"

There is now \u2018clear evidence\u2019 that cell phone radiation can cause cancers of the heart, brain and adrenal glands, a landmark United States (U.S.) National Institutes of Health (NIH) study warns.
\nA final report, released last week, confirms the preliminary findings that were released in 2016 after scientists were alarmed by early indications that cell radiation may be carcinogenic.
\nAlthough the tests were done on rodents at levels much higher than humans are currently exposed to, the link between cell phones and cancer in male rats was undeniable.
\nFor female rats and mice of both sexes, the evidence was less clear as to whether cancers observed were associated with signal exposure.
\nStill, scientists warn that the new research suggests that men in particular should take precautions to minimize the exposure of sensitive areas to cell phone radiation.
\nSenior scientist Dr. John Bucher at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in Durham, North Carolina said: \u201cThe exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone.
\n\u201cIn our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation (RFR) across their whole bodies.
\n\u201cBy contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone.
\n\u201cIn addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.\u201d
\nThe finding was the result of a $30 million 10-year study to assess the health effects in animals exposed to RFR with modulations used in 2G and 3G cell phones.
\nThe final reports represent the consensus of NTP and a panel of external scientific experts who reviewed the studies in March after draft reports were issued in February.
\nBucher explained: \u201cCell phones utilize a specific type of radio waves, or radio frequency radiation (RFR), to transmit between the devices and the network.
\n\u201cExposure of people to RFR occurs primarily through use of cell phones and other wireless devices.\u201d
\nThe newly-published study focused on 2G and 3G technology. Now, cell service companies have moved on up to 4G, LTE and are rolling out 5G.
\nThough newer phones are equipped to communicate through these frequencies, the researchers say the new study\u2019s finding\u2019s still shed worrying light on what our technologies do to our bodies.
\n\u201cWhile newer technologies have continued to evolve, it is important to note that these technologies have not completely replaced the older technologies,\u201d said Bucher.
\n\u201cIn fact, today\u2019s phones are very complex in that they contain several antennas, for Wi-Fi, GPS, 2G\/3G bands, etc. The results of these studies remain relevant to current exposures, although the power levels of the exposures were much higher than typical patterns of human use.\u201d
\nThe lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for mobile phone users but this power level rarely occurs with typical use.
\nThe highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted in our cell phones.
\nBucher, his team, and outside experts that they consulted about the study agree that this report represents the most solid evidence to-date that the link between cell phone radiation and the tumors they saw in rats is real.
\n\u201cA major strength of our studies is that we were able to control exactly how much radio frequency radiation the animals received \u2013 something that\u2019s not possible when studying human cell phone use, which has often relied on questionnaires,\u201d said Bucher.
\nExposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at five to six weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime.
\nThe RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totalling about nine hours each day.
\nRFR levels ranged from 1.5 to 6 watts per kilogramme in rats, and 2.5 to 10 watts per kilogram in mice.
\nThese studies did not investigate the types of RFR used for Wi-Fi or 5G networks, which may have very different health effects.
\nFuture studies will focus on developing measurable physical indicators, or biomarkers, of potential effects from RFR.
\nThese may include changes in metrics like DNA damage in exposed tissues, which can be detected much sooner than cancer.
\n\u201cThis animal evidence, together with the extensive human evidence, coupled with the rising incidence of brain cancers in young people in the US, conclusively confirms that radio frequency radiation is a Category 1 human carcinogen,\u201d said Dr Anthony Miller, a University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus.
\nAlso, teenagers who talk on the phone a lot, and hold their cell phones up to their right ears, score worse on one type of memory test. That is the finding of a new study. That memory impairment might be one side-effect of the radiation that phones use to keep us connected while we\u2019re on the go.
\nNearly 700 Swiss teens took part in a test of figural memory. This type helps us recall abstract symbols and shapes, explains Milena Foerster.
\nShe\u2019s an epidemiologist. That\u2019s someone who studies disease patterns within a population. She worked on the study as part of a team while Foerster was at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute in Basel, Switzerland. (She is now at the World Health Organization\u2019s International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France.)
\nTeens participated in memory tests twice, one year apart. Each time, they had one minute to memorize 13 pairs of abstract shapes. Then they were shown one item from each pair and asked to match it with one of five choices.
\nThe study volunteers also took a test of verbal memory. That\u2019s the ability to remember words. The two memory tests are parts of an intelligence test.
\nThe researchers also surveyed the teens on how they use mobile phones. And they got call records from phone companies.
\nThe researchers used those records to estimate how long the teens were using their phones. This allowed the researchers to calculate how big a radiation exposure each person could have gotten while talking.
\nAll cell phones give off energy in the form of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, or RF-EMFs. Radio and TV broadcasts also use this type of energy. So do microwave ovens and some other gadgets.
\nFor a phone, that energy carries information, in the form of calls or texts between phones and cell phone towers. That radiation also can travel into people\u2019s bodies as they use their phones. And some of its energy can be absorbed by the body.
\nSo far, scientists have not shown that radiation from phones causes harm, says the Federal Communications Commission. Research is ongoing, this U.S. agency notes.
\nThree cell phone towers in the distance<\/strong>
\nMobile phones send and receive data from cell phone towers in the form of electromagnetic energy. They use a type of energy called a radiofrequency electromagnetic field, or RF-EMF.
\nA phone user\u2019s exposure to RF-EMFs can vary widely. Some teens talk on their phone more than others. People also hold their phones differently. If the phone is close to the ear, more radiation may enter the body, Foerster notes.
\nEven the type of network signal that a phone uses can matter. Much of Switzerland was using an older \u201csecond-generation\u201d type of cell-phone network when the group collected its data.
\nThat type of network can expose people to between 100 and 500 times as much RF-EMF radiation as newer networks, the study reports.
\nMany phone carriers have moved away from such networks. And more companies plan to update their networks within the next few years.
\nThe teens\u2019 scores in the figural memory tests were roughly the same from one year to the next.
\nBut those who normally held their phone near their right ear, and who were also exposed to higher levels of radiation, scored a little bit worse after a year. No group of teens showed notable changes on the verbal memory test.
\nWhy might one type of memory be linked to cell phone use, but not another? Foerster and her colleagues think it could have to do where different memory centers sit in the brain. The site that deals with the ability to remember shapes is near the right ear.
\n\u201cThis may suggest that indeed RF-EMF absorbed by the brain is responsible\u201d for the results, said coauthor Martin R\u00f6\u00f6sli. He, too, is an epidemiologist in Basel at the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute.
\nThe report was published last July in Environmental Health Perspectives.
\nAlso, scientists warn children as young as two are developing mental health problems because of smartphones and tablets.
\nJust an hour a day staring at a screen can be enough to make children more likely to be anxious or depressed. This could be making them less curious, less able to finish tasks, less emotionally stable and lowering their self-control.
\nAlthough teenagers are most at risk from the damaging devices, children under the age of 10 and toddlers\u2019 still-developing brains are also being affected.
\nBut research shows \u2018zombie\u2019 British children spend nearly five hours every day gawping at electronic devices.
\nResearchers from San Diego State University and the University of Georgia say time spent on smartphones is a serious but avoidable cause of mental health issues.
\n\u201cHalf of mental health problems develop by adolescence,\u201d professors Jean Twenge and Keith Campbell said.
\n\u201cThere is a need to identify factors linked to mental health issues that are [able to be changed] in this population, as most are difficult or impossible to influence.
\n\u201cHow children and adolescents spend their leisure time is [easier] to change.\u201d
\nParents and teachers must cut the amount of time children spend online or watching television while they\u2019re studying, socialising, eating or even playing sport.
\nProfessor Twenge said her study, one of the biggest of its kind, backs the American Academy of Pediatrics\u2019 established screen time limit \u2013 one hour per day for children aged two to five.
\nIt also suggests a similar limit \u2013 perhaps two hours \u2013 should be applied to school-aged children and adolescents, she added.
\nThe researchers analysed data provided by the parents of more than 40,000 US children aged two to 17 for a nationwide health survey in 2016.
\nThe questionnaire asked about the youngsters\u2019 medical care, any emotional, developmental or behavioural issues and their daily screen time.
\nLead author, Dr. Jean Twenge, from San Diego State University, said: \u201cCompared with previous generations, teens in the 2010s spent more time online and less time with traditional media, such as books, magazines and television.
\n\u201cTime on digital media has displaced time once spent enjoying a book or watching TV.\u201d
\nThe researchers worry declining reading rates among teenagers will affect their performances at school as they lack the concentration to understand text books.
\nThe researchers analysed the results of the Monitoring the Future study, which surveys approximately 50,000 students aged 13-to-18 every year in the US.
\nAdolescents spending more than seven hours a day on screens are twice as likely to have been diagnosed with anxiety or depression as those who spent an hour.
\nLinks between screen time and wellbeing are stronger among adolescents than young children, the study found.
\nProfessor Twenge said: \u201cAt first, I was surprised the associations were larger for adolescents.
\n\u201cHowever, teens spend more time on their phones and on social media, and we know from other research that these activities are more strongly linked to low wellbeing than watching television and videos, which is most of younger children\u2019s screen time.\u201d
\nEven moderate use of four hours is also associated with lower psychological well-being than one hour a day.
\nPre-schoolers, or under fives, who are high users are twice as likely to often lose their temper \u2013 and are 46 per cent more prone to not be able to calm down when excited.
\nAmong 14 to 17 year olds, more than four in ten (42.2 per cent) of those in the study who spent more than seven hours a day on screens did not finish tasks.
\nAbout one in eleven (9 per cent) of 11 to 13-year-olds who spent an hour with screens daily were not curious or interested in learning new things.
\nWriting in the journal Preventative Medicine Reports, the professors said they were particularly interested in links between screen time and diagnoses of anxiety and depression in youngsters, which have not yet been studied in great detail.
\nThey said: \u201cPrevious research on associations between screen time and psychological well being among children and adolescents has been conflicting, leading some researchers to question the limits on screen time suggested by physician organisations.\u201d
\nThe US National Institute of Health estimates children and adolescents commonly spend an average of five to seven hours on screens during leisure time.
\nEvidence is growing of the adverse effects this has on health.
\nThis year the World Health Organisation decided to include gaming disorder in the 11th revision of the International Classification of Diseases.
\nAnd in December 2017 a team of Oxford University researchers found UK \u2018zombie\u2019 children\u2019s average daily screen time has leapt in a generation from just under three hours to four hours and 45 minutes.
\nExperts warn \u2018addicted\u2019 children risk sleeplessness, obesity and falling victim to cyber-bullying, while losing valuable social skills through a lack of face-to-face contact.
\n
\nBy The Guardian<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

There is now \u2018clear evidence\u2019 that cell phone radiation can cause cancers of the heart, brain and adrenal glands, a landmark United States (U.S.) National Institutes of Health (NIH) study warns. A final report, released last week, confirms the preliminary findings that were released in 2016 after scientists were alarmed by early indications that cell […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":13421,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5773],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13420","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-health"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13420","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=13420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=13420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=13420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/everyday.ng\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=13420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}