Revolutionary project: A world without diseases

[Roger Stephen Roth]

Gene Therapy may be the way to cure all the diseases in the world.
Gene Therapy
.

The way it works is we take a sample of your dna. find where there are problems, alter the DNA to correct the problems and then re-introduce the DNA back into your body.

Instant cure!!!

This has proven to work.

What's more is Stem Cells that can essentially re grow any part of your body.

There is also the ability through Gene Therapy to alter the Human DNA. this would switch different sequences of genes on and off and therefore you would be able to change the colour of your eyes or hair or alter any part of your body without surgery.

[Roger Stephen Roth]

The man who may hold the key to a cure for Aids was urged by doctors last night to come forward for the sake of millions of virus carriers worldwide.

The case of Andrew Stimpson, 25, who was diagnosed as HIV-positive in 2002 but found to be clear of the virus in 2003, has stunned the medical world. If doctors can establish why this happened, without treatment, it could benefit the 34.9 million virus carriers worldwide.

But Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare NHS Trust, which carried out the initial diagnosis tests, said Mr Stimpson has so far declined to undergo further tests with it.

A spokeswoman for the Trust said: "I can confirm that he has a positive and a negative test.

"When we became aware of his HIV-negative result we offered him further tests to help us investigate and find an explanation. So far he has declined to do so."

Mr Stimpson subsequently tried to sue the hospital, believing his initial positive test was inaccurate. But he was told there was no case to answer because both tests were correct. The Trust spokeswoman insisted there was no chance a mistake had crept into the testing system.

Mr Stimpson told the Mail on Sunday: "My doctor said 'you've cured yourself, you're fantastic'."

"I can't help wondering if I hold the cure for Aids. There are 34.9 million people with HIV and if I have something to contribute, then I am willing and ready to help."

The Scotsman, 25, who moved from the Ayrshire village of Skelmorlie, near Largs, to London four years ago, did not take any medication for HIV.

Genevieve Clark, the director of communications at the Terence Higgins Trust, said: "For this to happen is unheard of. We are not aware of any similar cases in the UK.

"The news is potentially remarkable but raises a lot of questions. There needs to be a thorough, scientific investigation to find out exactly what has happened.

"The fact that the hospital doctors are keen to do more tests shows it is early days. It could be a major breakthrough but we are keen to know more."

Mr Stimpson, who works as a sandwich maker, caught the virus from his long-term partner, Juan Gomez, 44, who has been HIV positive for some years.

Mr Stimpson felt tired, weak and feverish in May 2002. He had three blood tests at the Victoria Clinic for Sexual Health in west London, which specialises in HIV.

At first they were all negative, but Andrew was told the virus takes three months to show up in the blood after contraction.

And when he returned for more tests in August, they found HIV anti-bodies in his body.

Mr Stimpson said he became depressed and suicidal after being told he was HIV-positive but remained well and did not require medication.

"One thing I decided early on was I never wanted to see the HIV through to Aids. I was having nightmares about being in intensive care, hooked up to tubes and covered in lesions.

"It got so bad that I began researching euthanasia as a possible way out."

In the months following the diagnosis, Mr Stimpson complained of feverishness and other flu symptoms. But his doctors told him his body was "controlling" the virus well and that his immune system remained strong.

However, in October 2003 during a routine appointment at the Victoria Clinic, a doctor suggested a more sensitive test to check his viral load. It came back negative. Three more tests came back the same.

"There was a massive relief but I was also deeply confused," said Mr Stimpson. "And the doctors seemed as confused as me. I thought the first positive tests must have been wrong." But an investigation by the trust claimed otherwise.

Dr Patrick Dixon, an expert from Acet, an international Aids group, said the case was "very, very unusual. I've come across many anecdotal reports of this kind of thing happening in Africa, some quite recently, but it's difficult to verify them," he said.

"You have to be rock-solid sure that both samples came from the same person, no mix-up in the laboratory, no mistakes in the testing. This is the first well-documented case."

The case was important because "inside his immune system is perhaps a key that could allow us to develop some kind of vaccine".

The news will bring hope to millions dying of Aids who could benefit if medical scientists discover how Mr Stimpson's medical status changed.

Lisa Power, the policy director at the Terence Higgins Trust, said: "This could be of major interest to HIV researchers. We need to find out precisely what's happened with this person."

HIV and Aids: The facts

UK statistics

* HIV is the fastest growing serious health condition in the UK.

* Around 63,000 cases of HIV reported since it was discovered in the early Eighties

* 3,802 Aids-related deaths in total

* 6,675 new diagnoses in 2003

* 4,706 new diagnoses reported so far for 2004, but this is expected to rise to around 7,000 when all the data is compiled

* Men living with HIV outnumber women who have HIV by 2:1

* 47 per cent of new cases of HIV in 2003 were in London

* 52 per cent of people with HIV in 2003 live in London

Global statistics

* At the end of 2004, an estimated 39.4 million people had HIV

* 4.9 million people were infected with HIV in 2004 and 3.1 million people died from Aids-related illness

* The number of new cases diagnosed in East Asia rose by almost 50 per cent between 2002 and 2004, due mostly to China's rapidly growing epidemic.

* In Eastern Europe and Central Asia, diagnoses rates were up by 40 per cent between 2002 and 2004, mainly because of increases in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

* Sub-Saharan Africa continues to be the worst affected region, with 25.4 million people living with HIV at the end of 2004, up from 24.4 million in 2002.

* Sub-Saharan Africa accounts for nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) of all HIV infections worldwide. Three-quarters (76 per cent) of all the women living with HIV live there.

Source: Terrence Higgins Trust.

[Roger Stephen Roth]

This site says a whole bunch of things of a AIDS cover up and the evils of Big Pharma in the world.
http://www.shirleys-wellness-cafe.com/aids.htm

[Roger Stephen Roth]

Other possible treatments for these diseases
chlorine dioxide (Cl O2). Another cure for cancer is B17 from apricot seed.

[Roger Stephen Roth]

TOP SECRET INFORMATION REVEALED : AIDS CURE U.S. Patent #5676977

[Roger Stephen Roth]

Dr. Robert Gallo- The evil genius who created AIDS
Hello there and greetings to my fellow cerebrals! It turns out that i believe the origin of AIDS and even the cure of Cancer have been kept top secret by the FDA for the sake of drug companies profit and population control schemes. It turns out the origin of AIDS was a creation of a evil genius Dr. Robert Gallo who worked on the creation of the AIDS virus using various experiments in laboratories.

[Roger Stephen Roth]

US Patent 5,676,977 Curing AIDS=SILVER

Method of curing AIDS with tetrasilver tetroxide molecule crystal
ABSTRACT
The diamagnetic semiconducting molecular crystal tetrasilver tetroxide
(Ag.sub.4 O.sub.4) is utalized for destroying the AIDS virus, destroying AIDS synergistic pathogens and immunity suppressing moieties (ISM) in humans. A single intravenous injection of the devices is all that is required for efficacy at levels of about 40 PPM of human blood. The device molecular crystal contains two mono and two trivalent silver ions capable of "firing" electrons capable of electrocuting the AIDS virus, pathogens and ISM. When administreded into the bloodstream, the device electrons will be triggered by pathogens, a proliferating virus and ISM, and when fired will simultaneously trigger a redox chelation mechanism resulting in divalent silver moietes which chelate and bind active sites of the entities destroying them. The devices are completely non-toxic. However, they put stress on the liver causing hepatomegaly, but there is no loss of liver function.
__________________________________________________ _________________ Inventors: Antelman; Marvin S. (Rehovot, IL)
Assignee: Antelman Technologies Ltd. (Providence, RI)
Appl. No.: 658955
Filed: May 31, 1996
__________________________________________________ _________________
Download 1971 US SVCP Flow Chart
http://www.boydgraves.com/flowchart
Any additional info email: boyded2003@yahoo.com
phone: 216-382-9252

[Roger Stephen Roth]

The diamagnetic semiconducting molecular crystal tetrasilver tetroxide (Ag4 O4) is utilized for destroying the AIDS virus, destroying AIDS synergistic pathogens and immunity suppressing moieties (ISM) in humans.

A single intravenous injection of the devices is all that is required for efficacy at levels of about 40 PPM of human blood. The device molecular crystal contains two mono and two trivalent silver ions capable of "firing" electrons capable of electrocuting the AIDS virus, pathogens and ISM. When administered into the bloodstream, the device electrons will be triggered by pathogens, a proliferating virus and ISM, and when fired will simultaneously trigger a redox chelation mechanism resulting in divalent silver moieties which chelate and bind active sites of the entities destroying them. The devices are completely non-toxic. However, they put stress on the liver causing hepatomegaly, but there is no loss of liver function.

[Roger Stephen Roth]

HERE IS A TESTIMONY FROM DR. ROBERT BECK ON A ARTICLE ON THE TOP SECRET CURE FOR AIDS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1otPs4slq0

[Roger Stephen Roth]

It seems that i have been away for very long. My research in finding cures has been a painful one with the lack of resources. As i continue to learn about all the diseases in the world the more i learn that the majority of the world is ignorant about the whereabouts of the origins of many of these diseases. The diseases i am focusing most on is cancer, aids, and any lethal that can kill a human being. My dream is that this information to be used by someone who wants to know about more how to take care of themselves so they can do the same with their family and friends. Very close friends of mine died from brain cancer and the other from bone cancer. These are the reasons i do this research, because i believe these painful horrible things can be cured and i cannot wait for a scientist to come up with a solution. I want to speed up the process and see what i can do to help the world in need. I do my research in my own time on all i can see and learn about for the good of humanity.

[Roger Stephen Roth]

Electro magnetic radiation may cause cancer to spread in your system as well be the cause for Leukemia. It took me a while to find this out, also beware of over using your cell phone because there have been cases that brain tumors have formed from people who use cell phones way to much as the radiation poison from EMR waves can damage the brain itself with low frequency waves. One of the friends from my family died of brain cancer that spread too much in his body because i believe he had to much EMR waves from cell phone calls. This is just speculation but this research should protect many future generation of people. Also it is advisable to avoid X-ray scans and potential radiation waves which have been known to have links for the creation of cancer cells in the body.

* Electric and magnetic fields (EMF) are areas of energy that surround any electrical device. EMFs are produced by power lines, electrical wiring, and appliances (see Question 1).
* Electric fields are easily shielded or weakened by walls and other objects, whereas magnetic fields are not. Since magnetic fields are more likely to penetrate the body, they are the component of EMFs that are usually studied in relation to cancer (see Question 1).
* Overall, there is limited evidence that magnetic fields cause childhood leukemia, and there is inadequate evidence that these magnetic fields cause other cancers in children (see Question 2).
* Studies of magnetic field exposure from power lines and electric blankets in adults show little evidence of an association with leukemia, brain tumors, or breast cancer (see Question 3).
* Past studies of occupational magnetic field exposure in adults showed very small increases in leukemia and brain tumors. However, more recent, well-conducted studies have shown inconsistent associations with leukemia, brain tumors, and breast cancer (see Question 4).

1. What are electric and magnetic fields?

Electricity is the movement of electrons, or current, through a wire. The type of electricity that runs through power lines and in houses is alternating current (AC). AC power produces two types of fields (areas of energy)—an electric field and a magnetic field. An electric field is produced by voltage, which is the pressure used to push the electrons through the wire, much like water being pushed through a pipe. As the voltage increases, the electric field increases in strength. A magnetic field results from the flow of current through wires or electrical devices and increases in strength as the current increases. These two fields together are referred to as electric and magnetic fields, or EMFs.

Both electric and magnetic fields are present around appliances and power lines. However, electric fields are easily shielded or weakened by walls and other objects, whereas magnetic fields can pass through buildings, humans, and most other materials. Since magnetic fields are most likely to penetrate the body, they are the component of EMFs that are usually studied in relation to cancer.

The focus of this fact sheet is on extremely low-frequency magnetic fields. Examples of devices that emit these fields include power lines and electrical appliances, such as electric shavers, hair dryers, computers, televisions, electric blankets, and heated waterbeds. Most electrical appliances have to be turned on to produce a magnetic field. The strength of a magnetic field decreases rapidly with increased distance from the source.
2. Is there a link between magnetic field exposure at home and cancer in children?

Numerous epidemiological (population) studies and comprehensive reviews have evaluated magnetic field exposure and risk of cancer in children (1, 2). Since the two most common cancers in children are leukemia and brain tumors, most of the research has focused on these two types. A study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia (3). Among more recent studies, findings have been mixed. Some have found an association; others have not. These studies are discussed in the following paragraphs. Currently, researchers conclude that there is limited evidence that magnetic fields from power lines cause childhood leukemia, and that there is inadequate evidence that these magnetic fields cause other cancers in children (2). Researchers have not found a consistent relationship between magnetic fields from power lines or appliances and childhood brain tumors.

In one large study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the Children’s Oncology Group, researchers measured magnetic fields directly in homes (4). This study found that children living in homes with high magnetic field levels did not have an increased risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The one exception may have been children living in homes that had fields greater than 0.4 microtesla (µT), a very high level that occurs in few residences. Another study conducted by NCI researchers reported that children living close to overhead power lines based on distance measurements were not at greater risk of leukemia (5).

To estimate more accurately the risks of leukemia in children from magnetic fields resulting from power lines, researchers pooled (combined) data from many studies. In one pooled study that combined nine well-conducted studies from several countries, including a study from the NCI, a twofold excess risk of childhood leukemia was associated with exposure to magnetic fields above 0.4 µT (6). In another pooled study that combined 15 studies, a similar increased risk was seen above 0.3 µT (7). It is difficult to determine if this level of risk represents a real increase or if it results from study bias. Such study bias can be related to the selection of study subjects or possibly to other factors that relate to levels of magnetic field exposure. If magnetic fields caused childhood leukemia, certain patterns would have been found such as increasing risk with increasing levels of magnetic field exposure.

Another way that people can be exposed to magnetic fields is from household electrical appliances. Several studies have investigated this relationship (2). Although magnetic fields near many electrical appliances are higher than near power lines, appliances contribute less to a person’s total exposure to magnetic fields. This is because most appliances are used only for short periods of time, and most are not used close to the body, whereas power lines are always emitting magnetic fields.

In a detailed evaluation, investigators from NCI and the Children’s Oncology Group examined whether the use of household electrical appliances by the mother while pregnant and later by the child increased the risk of childhood leukemia. Although some appliances were associated with childhood leukemia, researchers did not find any consistent pattern of increasing risk with increasing years of use or how often the appliance was used (8). A few other studies have reported mostly inconsistencies or no relation between appliances and risk of childhood cancer.

Occupational exposure of mothers to high levels of magnetic fields during pregnancy has been associated with childhood leukemia in a Canadian study (9). Similar studies need to be done in other populations to see if this is indeed the case.
3. Is there a link between magnetic field exposure in the home and cancer in adults?

Although several studies have looked into the relationship of leukemia, brain tumors, and breast cancer in adults exposed to magnetic fields in the home, there are only a few large studies with long-term, magnetic field measurements. No consistent association between magnetic fields and leukemia or brain tumors has been established.

The majority of epidemiological studies have shown no relationship between breast cancer in women and magnetic fields from electrical appliances. Recent studies of breast cancer and magnetic fields in the home have included direct and indirect magnetic field measurements. These studies mostly found no association between breast cancer in females and magnetic fields from power lines or electric blankets (10, 11, 12, 13). A Norwegian study found a risk for exposure to magnetic fields in the home (14), and a study in African-American women found that use of electric bedding devices may increase breast cancer risk (15).
4. Is there a link between magnetic field exposure at work and cancer in adults?

Several studies conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s reported that people who worked in some electrical occupations (such as power station operators and phone line workers) had higher than expected rates of some types of cancer, particularly leukemia, brain tumors, and male breast cancer (2). Some occupational studies showed very small increases in risk for leukemia and brain cancer, but these results were based on job titles and not actual measurements. More recently conducted studies that have included both job titles and individual exposure measurements have no consistent finding of an increasing risk of leukemia, brain tumors, or female breast cancer with increasing exposure to magnetic fields at work (14, 16, 17, 18).
5. What have scientists learned from animal experiments about the relationship between magnetic field exposure and cancer?

Animal studies have not found that magnetic field exposure is associated with increased risk of cancer (2). The absence of animal data supporting carcinogenicity makes it biologically less likely that magnetic field exposures in humans, at home or at work, are linked to increased cancer risk.
6. Where can people find additional information on EMFs?

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Web site has information about EMFs and cancer, as well as information and publications related to the EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination (RAPID) Program. NIEHS can be contacted at:
Address: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Post Office Box 12233
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Telephone: 919–541–3345
TTY: 919–541–0731
E-mail: webcenter@niehs.nih.gov
Internet Web site: http://www.niehs.nih.gov

Note: Information about cancer risk and EMFs emitted from hand-held cellular phones (i.e., microwave frequencies) can be found in the NCI fact sheet Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer, which is available at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... cellphones on the Internet.


Selected References

1.

Ahlbom A, Cardis E, Green A, Linet M, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. Review of the epidemiologic literature on EMF and health. Environmental Health Perspectives 2001; 109(6): 911–933.
2.

World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Volume 80: Non-ionizing radiation, Part 1, Static and extremely low-frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. 2002: Lyon, France.
3.

Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 1979; 109(3): 273–284.
4.

Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, et al. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. The New England Journal of Medicine 1997; 337(1): 1–7.
5.

Kleinerman RA, Kaune WT, Hatch EE, et al. Are children living near high voltage power lines at increased risk of acute lymphocytic leukemia? American Journal of Epidemiology 2000; 15: 512–515.
6.

Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, et al. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British Journal of Cancer 2000; 83(5): 692–698.
7.

Greenland S, Sheppard AR, Kaune WT, Poole C, Kelsh MA. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields, wire codes, and childhood leukemia. Childhood Leukemia-EMF Study Group. Epidemiology 2000; 11(6): 624–634.
8.

Hatch EE, Linet MS, Kleinerman RA, et al. Association between childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia and use of electrical appliances during pregnancy and childhood. Epidemiology 1998; 9(3): 234–245.
9.

Infante-Rivard C, Deadman JE. Maternal occupational exposure to extremely low frequency magnetic fields during pregnancy and childhood leukemia. Epidemiology 2003; 14: 437–441.
10.

Schoenfeld ER, O’Leary ES, Henderson K, et al. Electromagnetic fields and breast cancer on Long Island: A case-control study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 47–58.
11.

London SJ, Pagoda JM, Hwang KL et al. Residential magnetic field exposure and breast cancer risk: A nested case-control study from a multi-ethnic cohort in Los Angeles, California. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 969–980.
12.

Davis S, Mirick DK, Stevens RG. Residential magnetic fields and the risk of breast cancer. American Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 155: 446–454.
13.

Kabat GC, O’Leary ES, Schoenfeld ER, et al. Electric blanket use and breast cancer on Long Island. Epidemiology 2003; 14(5): 514–520.
14.

Kliukiene J, Tynes T, Andersen A. Residential and occupational exposures to 50-Hz magnetic fields and breast cancer in women: A population-based study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159(9): 852–861.
15.

Zhu K, Hunter S, Payne-Wilks K, et al. Use of electric bedding devices and risk of breast cancer in African-American women. American Journal of Epidemiology 2003; 158: 798–806.
16.

Tynes T, Haldorsen T. Residential and occupational exposure to 50 Hz magnetic fields and hematological cancers in Norway. Cancer Causes & Control 2003; 14: 715–720.
17.

Labreche F, Goldberg MS, Valois M-F, et al. Occupational exposures to extremely low frequency magnetic fields and postmenopausal breast cancer. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2003; 44: 643–652.
18.

Willett E, McKinney PA, Fear NT, et al. Occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields and acute leukaemia: Analysis of a case-control study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2003; 60: 577–583.

# # #
Related NCI materials and Web pages:

* National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 3.72, Cellular Telephone Use and Cancer Risk
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... cellphones)

How can we help?

We offer comprehensive research-based information for patients and their families, health professionals, cancer researchers, advocates, and the public.

* Call NCI’s Cancer Information Service at 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237)
* Visit us at http://www.cancer.gov or http://www.cancer.gov/espanol
* Chat using LiveHelp, NCI’s instant messaging service, at http://www.cancer.gov/livehelp
* E-mail us at cancergovstaff@mail.nih.gov
* Order publications at http://www.cancer.gov/publications or by calling 1–800–4–CANCER
* Get help with quitting smoking at 1–877–44U–QUIT (1–877–448–7848)

Back to TopBack to Top

[Roger Stephen Roth]

You may all want to be careful on how much you use your cell phones as they may cause brain cancer if you abuse cell phone calls. Beware of RF energy levels which may be high when using cell phones.

* Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy, which is another name for radio waves (see Questions 1 and 2).
* Research suggests that the amount of RF energy produced by cell phones is too low to cause significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature (see Question 2).
* Concerns have been raised that RF energy from cell phones may pose a cancer risk to users (see Questions 1 and 2).
* Researchers are studying tumors of the brain and central nervous system and other sites of the head and neck because cell phones are typically held next to the head when used (see Question 5).
* Research studies have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancer. A large international study (Interphone) published in 2010 found that, overall, cell phone users have no increased risk for two of the most common types of brain tumor—glioma and meningioma. For the small proportion of study participants who reported spending the most total time on cell phone calls there was some increased risk of glioma, but the researchers considered this finding inconclusive (see Questions 6 and 7).

1. Why is there concern that cell phones may cause cancer or other health problems?

There are three main reasons why people are concerned that cell phones (also known as "wireless" or "mobile" telephones) may cause certain types of cancer or other health problems:

* Cell phones emit radiofrequency (RF) energy (radio waves), which is a form of radiation that has been under study for many years for its effects on the human body (1).

* Cell phone use began in Europe in the 1980s but did not come into widespread use in the United States until the 1990s. The technology is constantly evolving. The recent Interphone study is one of the few large studies of the effects of RF energy from cell phones on the human body.

* The number of cell phone users has increased rapidly. As of 2009, there were more than 285 million subscribers to cell phone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is an increase from 110 million users in 2000 and 208 million users in 2005.

For these reasons, it is important to learn whether RF energy from cell phones affects human health.
2.

What is RF energy and how can it affect the body?

RF energy is a form of electromagnetic radiation.

Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into two types: Ionizing (high-frequency) and non-ionizing (low-frequency) (2). RF energy is a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-ray machines, can pose a cancer risk. There is currently no conclusive evidence that non-ionizing radiation emitted by cell phones is associated with cancer risk (2).

Studies suggest that the amount of RF energy produced by cell phones is too low to cause significant tissue heating or an increase in body temperature. However, more research is needed to determine what effects, if any, low-level non-ionizing RF energy has on the body and whether it poses a health danger (2).
3. How is a cell phone user exposed to RF energy?

A cell phone's main source of RF energy is produced through its antenna. The antenna of newer hand-held cell phones is in the handset, which is typically held against the side of the head when the telephone is in use. The closer the antenna is to the head, the greater a person's expected exposure to RF energy. The amount of RF energy absorbed by a person decreases significantly with increasing distance between the antenna and the user. The intensity of RF energy emitted by a cell phone depends on the level of the signal (1).

When a call is placed from a cell phone, a signal is sent from the antenna of the phone to the nearest base station antenna. The base station routes the call through a switching center, where the call can be transferred to another cell phone, another base station, or the local land-line telephone system. The farther a cell phone is from the base station antenna, the higher the power level needed to maintain the connection. This distance determines, in part, the amount of RF energy exposure to the user.

4. What determines how much RF energy a cell phone user experiences?

A cell phone user’s level of exposure to RF energy depends on several factors, including:

* The number and duration of calls.
* The amount of cell phone traffic at a given time.
* The distance from the nearest cellular base station.
* The quality of the cellular transmission.
* The size of the handset.
* For older phones, how far the antenna is extended.
* Whether or not a hands-free device is used.

5. What parts of the body may be affected during cell phone use?

There is concern that RF energy produced by cell phones may affect the brain and other tissues in the head because hand-held cell phones are usually held close to the head. Researchers have focused on whether RF energy can cause malignant (cancerous) brain tumors, such as gliomas (cancers of the brain that begin in glial cells, which surround and support the nerve cells), as well as benign (noncancerous) tumors, such as acoustic neuromas (tumors that arise in the cells of the nerve that supplies the ear) and meningiomas (tumors that occur in the meninges , which are the membranes that cover and protect the brain and spinal cord) (1). The salivary glands also may be exposed to RF energy from cell phones held close to the head.

6. What studies have been done, and what do they show?

Numerous studies have investigated the relationship between cell phone use and the risk of developing malignant and benign brain tumors.

The most significant study of long-term use is the 13-country Interphone study, which is a multinational consortium of case-control studies. Interphone was coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (3). The primary objective of the Interphone study was to assess whether RF energy exposure from cell phones is associated with an increased risk of malignant or benign brain tumors and other head and neck tumors. Participating countries included Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (4).

Interphone researchers reported that, overall, cell phone users have no increased risk for two of the most common types of brain tumor―glioma and meningioma. In addition, they found no evidence of increasing risk with progressively increasing number of calls, longer call time, or years since beginning cell phone use. For the small proportion of study participants who reported spending the most total time on cell phone calls, there was some increased risk of glioma, but the researchers considered this finding inconclusive. The study was published online May 17, 2010, in the International Journal of Epidemiology (5).

Additional studies have investigated the risk of developing glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma. Results from the majority of these studies have found no association between hand-held cell phone use and the risk of brain cancer (6–11); however, some, but not all, studies have suggested slightly increased risks for certain types of brain tumors (12, 13).

Two reports published in November 2004 by researchers from individual countries that participated in the Interphone study described the results of assessments of cell phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. One report described a Danish case-control study that showed no increased risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term (10 years or more) cell phone users compared with short-term users, and there was no increase in the incidence of tumors on the side of the head where the phone was usually held (14). The other report described a Swedish study that examined similar populations and found a slightly elevated risk of acoustic neuroma in long-term cell phone users but not in short-term users (15).

A pooled analysis of data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom did not find relationships between the risk of acoustic neuroma and the duration of cell phone use, cumulative hours of use, or number of calls; however, the risk of a tumor on the same side of the head as the reported phone use was higher among persons who had used a cell phone for 10 years or more. Some other studies have reported similar findings (16). However, there is concern that people with a tumor on one side of their head might be more likely to report phone use on that side (12).

Other reports from the Danish and Swedish researchers who collaborated in the Interphone study investigated whether a relationship exists between cell phone use and the risk of meningioma or glioma. These studies compared individuals with meningioma or glioma with a control group of disease-free individuals and found no link between these conditions and cell phone use (17, 18).

In addition, pooled analyses of data from four Nordic countries and the United Kingdom did not show overall associations between the risk of glioma or meningioma and the cumulative hours of cell phone use or the number of calls (19, 20). There was a slightly increased risk of glioma occurring on the same side of the head as the reported phone use among persons who used a cell phone for at least 10 years (19).

In an attempt to avoid the issue of biases associated with case-control studies, researchers defined a cohort of 420,095 persons in Denmark with cell phone subscriptions and linked this roster with the Danish Cancer Registry to identify brain tumors occurring in this population (10, 11). Cell phone use was not associated with glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma, even among persons who had been subscribers for 10 or more years. Cell phone service subscription does not necessarily relate directly to cell phone use, duration, and frequency of use. A listed subscriber may not be the primary user of the phone. However, this type of prospective study has the advantage of not having to rely on people’s ability to remember past cell phone use.

Incidence data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), which is part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), show no increase in the age-adjusted incidence of brain and other nervous system cancers between 1987 and 2007, despite the dramatic increase in the use of cell phones (21). NCI continues to monitor cancer incidence data to detect any change in the rates of new cases of brain cancer. If cell phones play a role in the risk of brain cancer, one would expect to see an increase in rates because average monthly hours of cell phone use have increased regularly for the past decade in the United States.

There are very few studies of the possible relationship between cell phone use and tumors other than those of the brain and central nervous system (22–25).
7. What large studies has NCI conducted on cell phones and what have they found?

NCI began a comprehensive study of possible environmental and genetic causes of malignant and benign brain tumors in 1994. The findings were published in 2001 (http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/cellphassoc) and were part of a comprehensive study to address a variety of possible risk factors for brain tumors. The study included 782 brain tumor cases and 799 controls from three medical institutions: St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix, Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and Western Pennsylvania Hospital in Pittsburgh. The study included brain tumor patients diagnosed with glioma (489 cases), meningioma (197 cases), or acoustic neuroma (96 cases). The control subjects were people who were admitted for a variety of non-cancerous conditions to the same hospitals as the brain tumor patients. The control subjects were matched with the case subjects by hospital, sex, race, age, and distance of residence from the hospital. The study was restricted to adults who were 18 or older who received care at one of the participating hospitals, resided within 50 miles of the hospital, and could understand English or Spanish. Data collection began in 1994 and was completed in 1998.

The study found no indication of higher brain tumor risk among persons who had used hand-held cell phones compared with those who had not used them. More importantly, there was no evidence of increasing risk with increasing years of use or average minutes of use per day, nor did brain tumors among cell phone users tend to occur more often than expected on the side of the head on which the person reported using their phone. Specifically, there was no indication of increased risk associated with use of a cell phone for 1 hour or more per day, for 5 or more years, or for cumulative use of more than 100 hours. These findings pertain to all three tumor types considered (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma).
The results of this study pertain primarily to patterns of cell phone use in the United States during the early to mid-1990s. During the period of this study, there was no evidence that use of hand-held cell phones caused tumors of the brain and central nervous system. The findings suggest that, if there was any increase in risk, it was small, particularly for malignant tumors (glioma).

8. What studies are being done to help understand whether there is a biologic basis for cell phone radiation exposure to cause cancer?

Another part of the NIH, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), is carrying out a study of risks related to exposure to RF radiation (the type used in cell phones) in highly specialized labs that can specify and control sources of radiation and measure their effects on rodents.

9. Gliomas are the most common brain cancers being studied. What other brain tumors are being studied?

NCI’s Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS) is funding a population-based, case-control study of meningioma (which accounts for up to 25 percent of all primary brain tumors) in Connecticut, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Texas, and the San Francisco Bay area of California. This study represents the first concentrated effort to examine environmental and genetic risk factors for meningioma. The researchers are collecting information from 1,520 adults diagnosed with meningioma (case subjects) and 1,520 individuals without the disease (control subjects) matched by sex, age, and other characteristics to amass information on two main categories of risk—exposure to ionizing radiation and hormones—as well as on family history of the disease and other tumors, cell phone use, head trauma, outcome, and quality of life.

10.

Why are the results of some, but not most, studies inconsistent?

The Interphone study suggests that overall there is no cancer risk from cell phones.

There are several reasons for the discrepancies between other studies:
*

Information about cell phone use, including the frequency of use and the duration of calls, has largely been assessed through questionnaires. The completeness and accuracy of the data collected during such interviews is dependent on the memory of the responding individuals. In case-control studies, individuals with brain tumors may remember cell phone use differently from healthy individuals, which can result in a problem known as recall bias.
*

Digital cell phones have been in common use for less than a decade in the United States, and cellular technology continues to change (1). What was called 2G, or second-generation technology, was introduced in the United States in the 1990s. It was not until 3G, or third-generation technology, was introduced in 2001 that cell phone use became widely accepted in this country. Although older studies evaluated RF energy exposure from analog telephones, most cell phones today use digital technology, which operates at a different frequency and a lower power level than analog phones.
*

The interval between exposure to a carcinogen and the clinical onset of a tumor may be many years or decades. Scientists have been unable to monitor large numbers of cell phone users for the length of time it might take for brain tumors to develop (1).
*

Epidemiologic studies of cell phone use and brain cancer risk lack verifiable data about cumulative RF energy exposure over time (the total amount of RF energy individuals have encountered). These studies are also vulnerable to errors in the reporting of RF exposure by study participants (26, 27). In addition, study participation rates are frequently different between those with cancer and those without cancer in brain tumor studies, a problem known as participation bias. Some studies have indicated greater participation by individuals diagnosed with brain tumors compared with control subjects, and participation rates may be related to cell phone use.
*

The use of “hands-free” wireless technology is increasing and may alter cell phone RF energy exposure.

With the publication of the Interphone study, research has fairly consistently demonstrated that there is not a link between cell phone use and cancer, but scientists caution that further surveillance, especially of heavy users and children and adolescents, is needed before definite conclusions can be drawn (1, 28).
11. Are any prospective studies or other types of studies that don’t involve recall bias being conducted?

A large, prospective cohort study of cell phone use and its possible long-term health effects was launched in Europe in March 2010. This study, known as COSMOS, will enroll approximately 250,000 cell phone users age 18 or older and will follow them for 20 to 30 years. Participants in COSMOS will complete a questionnaire about their health, lifestyle, and current and past cell phone use. This information will be supplemented with information from health records and cell phone records. More information about the COSMOS study is available at http://www.ukcosmos.org/index.html on the Internet.

Although recall bias is minimized in studies that link to cell phone records, such studies face other problems. For example, it is impossible to know who is using the cell phone or whether they are using multiple phones and, to a lesser extent, if multiple users of a single phone are represented on one bill.
12.

Do children have a higher risk of developing cancer due to cell phone use than adults?

There are currently no data on cell phone use and risk of cancer in children. No published studies to date have included children. Cell phone use by children and adolescents is increasing rapidly, and they are likely to accumulate many years of exposure during their lives (1). In addition, children may be at greater risk because their nervous systems are still developing at the time of exposure. A large case-control study of childhood brain cancer in several Northern European countries is in progress. Researchers from the Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology in Spain are conducting an international study—Mobi-Kids—to evaluate risk from new communications technologies (including cell phones) and other environmental factors in young people ages 10 to 24. More information about the Mobi-Kids study is available at http://www.mbkds.com on the Internet.
13.

What can cell phone users do to reduce their exposure to RF energy?

The Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have suggested some steps that cell phone users can take if they are concerned about potential health risks (2, 29):
*

Reserve the use of cell phones for shorter conversations, or for times when a conventional phone is not available.
*

Switch to a type of cell phone with a hands-free device that will place more distance between the phone and the head of the user.

Hands-free kits reduce the amount of RF energy exposure to the head because the antenna, which is the source of RF energy, is not placed against the head.
14.

Where can I find more information about RF energy from my cell phone?

The FCC provides information about the specific absorption rate (SAR) of cell phones produced and marketed within the last 1 to 2 years. The SAR corresponds to the relative amount of RF energy absorbed into the head of a cell phone user (30). Consumers can access this information using the phone’s FCC ID number, which is usually located on the case of the phone, and the FCC’s ID search form, which is located at http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/fccid on the Internet.
15.

What are other sources of RF energy?

The most common use of RF energy is for telecommunications (2). In the United States, cell phones currently operate in a frequency range of about 1,800 to 2,200 megahertz (MHz) (1). In this range, the electromagnetic radiation produced is in the form of non-ionizing RF energy. Cordless phones (phones that have a base unit connected to the telephone wiring in a house) often operate at radio frequencies similar to those of cell phones; however, since cordless phones have a limited range and require a nearby base, their signals are generally much less powerful than those of cell phones. Among other RF energy sources, AM/FM radios and VHF/UHF televisions operate at lower radio frequencies than cell phones, whereas sources such as radar, satellite stations, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices, industrial equipment, and microwave ovens operate at somewhat higher radio frequencies (2).
16.

How common is brain cancer and has the incidence of brain cancer changed over time?

Brain cancer incidence and mortality (death) rates have changed little in the past decade. In the United States, 22,070 new diagnoses and 12,920 deaths from brain cancer were estimated for 2009.

The 5-year survival rate for brain cancers diagnosed from 1999 to 2006 was 36.3 percent (21). This means that 36.3 out of every 100 persons diagnosed with brain cancer today will survive at least 5 years.

The risk of developing brain cancer increases with age; the incidence rate from 2003 to 2007 for people under age 65 was 4.6 for every 100,000 persons in the U.S. population, compared with 19.4 for every 100,000 persons age 65 or older (21).

Selected References

1. Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D, Swerdlow A. Epidemiology of health effects on radiofrequency exposure. Environmental Health Perspectives 2004; 112(17):1741-1754.

2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Radiation-Emitting Products: Reducing Exposure: Hands-free Kits and Other Accessories. Silver Spring, MD. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from: http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingPr ... rocedures/
HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116293.htm.

3. Cardis E, Richardson L, Deltour I, et al. The INTERPHONE study: Design, epidemiological methods, and description of the study population. European Journal of Epidemiology 2007; 22(9):647–664.

4. International Agency for Research on Cancer (2008). INTERPHONE Study: Latest results update—8 October 2008. Lyon, France. Retrieved September 8, 2009, from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/research-groups/R ... 8oct08.pdf.

5. The INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: Results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2010; published online ahead of print May 17, 2010.

6. Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, et al. Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. New England Journal of Medicine 2001; 344(2):79-86.

7. Hepworth SJ, Schoemaker MJ, Muir KR, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: Case-control study. British Medical Journal 2006; 332(7546):883-887.

8. Klaeboe L, Blaasaas KG, Tynes T. Use of mobile phones in Norway and risk of intracranial tumours. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2007; 16(2):158-164.

9. Takebayashi T, Varsier N, Kikuchi Y, et al. Mobile phone use, exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic field, and brain tumour: A case-control study. British Journal of Cancer 2008; 98(3):652-659.

10. Johansen C, Boice Jr. JD, McLaughlin JK, Olsen JH. Cellular telephones and cancer: A nationwide cohort study in Denmark. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2001; 93(3):203-207.

11. Schuz J, Jacobsen R, Olsen JH, et al. Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: Update of a nationwide Danish cohort. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2006; 98(23):1707-1713.

12. Schoemaker MJ, Swerdlow AJ, Ahlbom A, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: Results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. British Journal of Cancer 2005; 93(7):842-848.

13. Hours M, Bernard M, Montestrucq L, et al. [Cell phones and risk of brain and acoustic nerve tumours: The French INTERPHONE case-control study.] Revue d'Epidemiologie et de Sante Publique 2007; 55(5):321-332.

14. Christensen HC, Schuz J, Kosteljanetz M, et al. Cellular telephone use and risk of acoustic neuroma. American Journal of Epidemiology 2004; 159(3):277–283.

15. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M. Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology 2004; 15(6):653–659.

16. Hardell L, Carlberg M. Mobile phones, cordless phones and the risk for brain tumours. International Journal of Oncology 2009; 35:5–17.

17. Christensen HC, Schuz J, Kosteljanetz M, et al. Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: A population-based, incident case-control study. Neurology 2005; 64(7):1189–1195.

18. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M, Swedish Interphone Study Group. Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk. American Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 161(6):526–535.

19. Lahkola A, Auvinen A, Raitanen J, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in five North European countries. International Journal of Cancer 2007; 120(8):1769–1775.

20. Lahkola A, Salminen T, Raitanen J, et al. Meningioma and mobile phone use—a collaborative case-control study in five North European countries. International Journal of Epidemiology 2008; 37(6):1304–1313.

21. Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2007. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute. Retrieved May 14, 2010, from: http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007.

22. Stang A, Anastassiou G, Ahrens W, et al. The possible role of radiofrequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma. Epidemiology 2001; 12(1):7–12.

23. Linet MS, Taggart T, Severson RK, et al. Cellular telephones and non-Hodgkin lymphoma. International Journal of Cancer 2006; 119(10):2382–2388.

24. Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Christensen HC, et al. Mobile phone use and risk of parotid gland tumor. American Journal of Epidemiology 2006; 164(7):637–643.

25. Sadetzki S, Chetrit A, Jarus-Hakak A, et al. Cellular phone use and risk of benign and malignant parotid gland tumors—a nationwide case-control study. American Journal of Epidemiology 2008; 167(4):457–467.

26. Lahkola A, Salminen T, Auvinen A. Selection bias due to differential participation in a case-control study of mobile phone use and brain tumors. Annals of Epidemiology 2005; 15(5):321–325.

27. Vrijheid M, Deltour I, Krewski D, Sanchez M, Cardis E. The effects of recall errors and of selection bias in epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and cancer risk. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology 2006; 16(4):371–384.

28. Ahlbom A, Feychting M, Green A, et al. Epidemiologic evidence on mobile phones and tumor risk: A review. Epidemiology 2009; 20(5):639–652.

29. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (2009). Wireless. Washington, D.C. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/cellular.html.

30. U.S. Federal Communications Commission (2009). Cellular Telephone Specific Absorption Rate (SAR). Retrieved May 17, 2010, from: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/sar.

# # #

Related NCI materials and Web pages:

* National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 3.46, Magnetic Field Exposure and Cancer: Questions and Answers
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... tic-fields)
* Cancer Causes and Risk Factors Home Page
(http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/prev ... ses/causes)

How can we help?

We offer comprehensive research-based information for patients and their families, health professionals, cancer researchers, advocates, and the public.

* Call NCI’s Cancer Information Service at 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237)
* Visit us at http://www.cancer.gov or http://www.cancer.gov/espanol
* Chat using LiveHelp, NCI’s instant messaging service, at http://www.cancer.gov/livehelp
* E-mail us at cancergovstaff@mail.nih.gov
* Order publications at http://www.cancer.gov/publications or by calling 1–800–4–CANCER
* Get help with quitting smoking at 1–877–44U–QUIT (1–877–448–7848)

Back to TopBack to Top