Cellphones Linked To Brain TumorsThe good news is they’re benign;

the bad news is they’re there

Millions of research dollarshave been spent worldwide todetermine whether cellphonescause brain tumors. Now,what health experts call alarge-scale, well-conductedstudy has yielded the mostconclusive evidence of such alink to date.

Researchers at the Karolin-ska Institute of EnvironmentalMedicine, in Stockholm,Sweden, have found an associ-ation between long-term cell-phone use and a rare, benigntumor, causing concern amongradiation specialists andepidemiologists, though theyemphasize that the resultshaven’t been replicated yet.Scientists now eagerly awaitresults from other studiesunder way around the world.

Published in the Novemberissue of the journal Epidemiol-

ogy, the Swedish study, led byStefan Lönn of the KarolinskaInstitute, looked at 148 peoplewho had acoustic neuromaand compared them with 604healthy people. It found thatpeople who used cellphonesfor more than 10 years dou-bled their risk of developingthe tumor, a benign conditionaffecting one in 100 000 peo-ple. Acoustic neuroma growson the nerve connecting thebrain and the inner ear, caus-ing hearing loss. The risk wasfour times as high on the sideof the head where the phonewas usually held.

No tumors were associatedwith less than 10 years of cell-phone use, an outcome thathas been documented by paststudies. So, as more and morepeople approach this 10-yearmark, should they be worried

SOURCE: CELLULAR TELEPHONEINDUSTRY ASSOCIATION

LOOMING THREAT? In coming years millions of people in the United

States will have used cellphones for at least 10 years. A recent study

found that those who had used a cellphone for 10 years or more were

at increased risk of developing a benign tumor.

PH

OTO

: GET

TY

IMA

GES

20 IEEE Spectrum | December 2004 | NA

the Justice Departmenthas been offeringamnesty to the first con-spiring company to comeforward with evidence,even after an investiga-

tion has started, and there isoften a smaller reward for beingthe second to give evidence.“That puts cartel members in avery iffy position,” he says.

The evidence the JusticeDepartment collects from theprotected company usuallymust include proof that theconspirators met and intendedto fix prices. “All the economicanalysis in the world doesn’tmean a thing,” says Lande.“You’ve got to have hard,old-fashioned evidence.”

With that evidence inhand, the Justice Department

pressures the other conspira-tors to plead guilty. Ratherthan go to court and hash outthe incredibly complex ques-tion of what prices wouldhave been if there had neverbeen a conspiracy, the compa-nies and the government usu-ally settle.

According to Lande, thegovernment often proposes ini-tially a fine of 20 percent of theconspirator’s U.S. revenue fromthe product in question, andthe two sides negotiate down-ward from there.

Unlike the other top DRAMmakers subpoenaed at the startof the investigation, MicronTechnology Inc., in Boise,Idaho, the world’s second-largest DRAM producer, hasboldly claimed it will not haveto pay a fine, suggesting thatthe company has been grantedimmunity by the government.“We don’t expect any indict-ments, plea agreements,charges, [or] fines,” saidMicron CEO Steven Appletonin a 29 September conferencecall to analysts. A Micron

spokesman told IEEE Spectrumonly that the company is coop-erating with the investigation.

Civil suits by customerscan follow criminal fines, and,if a price increase is passedalong to consumers, they cansue, too. Lande says that directcustomers, makers of PCs andservers in this case, often de-cline to sue the conspirators,in part because they mustmaintain a relationship withthe supplier. Calls to Apple,Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, andIBM regarding possible legalaction were not returned. ADell spokesman said the com-pany doesn’t “offer commenton any of our suppliers.”

As for the computer con-sumer suits, they are legal inonly about half of U.S. states.

But populous California isone of them, and consumersthere won a “monster”$1.1 billion from Redmond,Wash.–based Microsoft Corp.in 2003 for using its monop-oly power to overcharge forits Windows operating sys-tems, American Antitrust’sLande points out. Withinweeks of Infineon’s plea,at least four law firmsannounced that they wereseeking plaintiffs for a class-action suit. But rather thanclaim that consumers werehurt, they are alleging thatinvestors were duped becauseInfineon’s $5.9-billion initialpublic offering in 2000 wasovervalued based on the con-spiracy’s inflated prices.

Government fines and pri-vate lawsuits will likely havelittle impact on the operationsor investment plans of DRAMmakers, says iSuppli analystKim. “Legal issues are happen-ing all the time in this indus-try,” he says. “Historically, itnever affects the market.”

—SAMUEL K. MOORE

Infineon’s guilty plea suggests that others

were involved in a DRAM price-rigging

conspiracy, and that there will be more fines,

as well as penalties, and perhaps even

jail sentences, to come

NE

WS

22 IEEE Spectrum | December 2004 | NA

[see chart, “Looming Threat?”]? Andshould they also be concerned about oth-er, malignant tumors? Experts aren’t sure.

“The degree of care that went into thisstudy makes it worthy of attention,” saysJames C. Lin, who studies the biological

effects of electromagnetic radiation at theUniversity of Illinois at Chicago. But, he warns,“biological responses are so complex that youcan’t base judgment on one observation.”

Broadly speaking, most animal and epidemio-logical studies have found no connection betweentumors and cellphone use, notes Kenneth R.Foster, who studies the health risks of nonioniz-ing electromagnetic radiation at the University ofPennsylvania, in Philadelphia. Because acousticneuroma is unusual, Foster is not much fazed byLönn’s findings, personally. “The risk of gettingsuch a rare, benign tumor isn’t going to keep meup at night,” he says. Nor does he believe that theresults will have much immediate impact on U.S.government health authorities, or on court casesbrought against cellphone makers by victims ofbrain cancer, which is a different disease.

But the situation warrants watching, say ex-perts. The Lönn paper is second in a series ofstudies looking at the relationship between cell-phone use and the risk of various brain, head,and neck tumors. Thirteen countries, the UnitedStates not among them, are a part of this collab-orative effort coordinated by the InternationalAgency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France.The first research paper, from Denmark, showedno link between acoustic neuroma and cellphoneuse, but it contained fewer subjects with long-term exposure. The IARC expects to analyze thedata from the separate countries’ reports on thisissue and to have collective results early nextyear. These reports should cover 1000 cases ofacoustic neuroma, as well as many cases of othertypes of tumors, both benign and malignant.

Linda Erdreich, a senior managing scientistspecializing in health risk assessment and epi-demiology at the New York City office ofExponent, a science and engineering consultingfirm, believes that the Swedish scientists did “agood job” but has some lingering doubts abouttheir findings. One is the potential for what’scalled detection bias. People might be more likelyto be diagnosed with tumors on the side of thehead where they usually hold the phone becausethey may notice hearing loss more easily on thatside and seek treatment. Also, Lönn and hiscolleagues found no correlation between tumoroccurrence and number of hours of phone use. Ifcellphones were the culprit, longer phone usewould cause more tumors.

If cellphone users want to be cautious, Fosteradvises, they can reduce the hours they spendcalling on the go or use headsets. Forget aboutRF-shielding and radiation-reduction devices,says Foster. According to him, they don’t work.

—PRACHI PATEL PREDD

NE

WS