U.S. scientists have been investigating whether prenatal exposure to mobile phone radiation has any impact on mice, though the authors caution that their findings may be difficult to translate to human risks.

Female mice were exposed to an active mobile phone call throughout their pregnancy. The authors found that fetal exposure to mobile phone radiation may affect neurological development and function of adult mice, reporting that the exposed mice tended to be more hyperactive and had decreased anxiety and reduced memory capacity.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories. If you would like a copy of the research or to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Prof Rodney Croft is Professor of Health Psychology, School of Psychology, University of Wollongong and former Executive Director of the Australian Centre for Radio Frequency Bioeffects Research

“There are two major limitations with the paper that preclude any comment about the effects of mobile phone emissions on ADHD. The first is that the measurement of absorbed doses (dosimetry) was not adequate as we don’t even know if one group of mice was exposed more than the other. The second is that we can’t extrapolate from the mouse results to ADHD in humans (indeed the changes observed in the mice were not even consistent with ADHD).

None-the-less, should associations be found between mobile phone emissions and behaviour in mice, this would be very important scientifically, particularly as none have been identified to date. It will thus be important to replicate the study with improved methodology to determine whether mobile phone emissions can affect long-term memory, hyperactivity or anxiety; a pattern that although not relating to ADHD, would be important for human wellbeing more generally.”

———-

UK expert comments – collected by our friends at the UK Science Media Centre:

Dr Mischa de Rover, Cognitive Psychologist, Leiden University, The Netherlands, said:

“I performed scientific studies in mice, rats and humans and I found extrapolation of animal data to humans the most difficult part in that area of science. Good animal data is of crucial importance as a starting point for human studies but should never be used as a basis for risk assessment in humans.”

———-

Eric Taylor, Emeritus Professor of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“This paper does not show any link between radiofrequency exposure and ADHD.  The rate of ADHD problems has been steady for more than 20 years (any increase is due to greater recognition), so mobile phones are an unlikely cause.

“Taking animal studies and extrapolating directly to humans requires much more care.  The exposure of the animals was very great, and the researchers’ tests of animal memory should not be directly equated to human attention; different species can react differently.”

———-

Professor Malcolm Sperrin, Director of Medical Physics and Clinical Engineering, Royal Berkshire Hospital, said:

“This paper presents work from a highly respected organisation and does bring additional insight into how electromagnetic radiation may affect tissue and its development during gestation.  The study is designed appropriately and the conclusions are reasonable.  However, the authors repeatedly state that any correlation between the effects on mice during the study and predicted effects on humans are too tenuous to be reasonably claimed.

“This study does not suggest that mobile phones could be the cause of ADHD in humans for several reasons: Firstly, the developmental model for mice bears no practical resemblance to humans (19 days gestation versus nine months). Secondly, the mice experienced long periods of exposure – in some cases continuously. Thirdly, the distance between the source of radiation and the target tissue is not representative of human usage (a few cm as opposed to a metre or so). And finally, Power density and exposure conditions will be different between the mice and humans.

“It is reasonable to conclude that this study is a worthy step aimed at understanding non-ionising radiation effects, but great caution must be given not to stretch the data too far until more work is done to move toward human equivalent studies.

“It should also be recognised that ADHD is a syndrome which is still being researched and the increase in incidence may arise because of a greater understanding and willingness to describe the occurrence of ADHD.  The paper does recognise this and the presence of other contributory factors as possible confounding influences.

“It would be very interesting to identify control groups including those where mobile phone exposure is very limited and to correlate against ADHD in such communities.”

———-

Katya Rubia, Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“The extrapolation of the behavioural and brain effects of prenatal mobile phone exposure in mice to human ADHD and its increase in our society is alarmist and unjustified. Some enhancement in motor activity in mice is not translatable to the complex human ADHD behaviour characterised by impulsiveness, inattention and motor activity. ADHD is not associated with memory problems, or with decreased anxiety, and the key brain deficits are in the basal ganglia rather than the frontal lobe. While research in humans is warranted there is no convincing evidence in the data to back up such extrapolations to human ADHD.”

“This research does not show that mobile phone radiation exposure in utero is linked to ADHD in humans because:

• The study is in mice and radiation levels are far higher for a mouse foetus than a human foetus.

• The behavioural outcome features are not comparable to those measured in humans. For example, the mice showed higher motor activity levels and not “hyperactivity”, and the enhanced motoricity does not translate into human ADHD, which is defined as a complex behaviour including hyperactivity, impulsiveness and inattention.

• Long-term memory that is tested in this study is not associated with ADHD, working memory is but this was not tested in the mice. The introduction mentions working memory impairment in ADHD but then the study measures long-term memory which has nothing to do with working memory. These are two separate functions with dissociated neurobiological substrates. Long-term memory is mediated by the hippocampus and not the frontal lobes, which mediate working memory.

• Anxiety was reduced in exposed mice, but this is typically higher in ADHD and a key comorbidity.

• The frontal lobe glutamate system is associated with most psychiatric disorders and there is therefore no specific association between frontal lobe impairment and ADHD. In fact the basal ganglia are the most consistently associated brain areas with ADHD and not the frontal lobes.

“Overall the association between the behavioural and brain complications in rodents due to prenatal mobile phone exposure and human ADHD is clearly over-egged and not justified by the data.”

———-

Jim Stevenson, Emeritus Professor of Developmental Psychopathology, University of Southampton, said:

“The study by Aldad et al. concerns the effects on behaviour in mice of exposure to cellular telephone radiation in utero.  In introducing their research and in the discussion of their findings the authors propose that the study contributes to our understanding of the origins of hyperactivity and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.  The paper itself presents no findings on behaviour in children.  The authors imply that since a previous study found an association then their work can be seen as suggesting a possible mechanism for the association.

“The paper makes just one reference to a study on humans linking prenatal exposure to cellular radiation to children’s behaviour. The authors of the study referred to conclude:   “These associations may be noncausal and may be due to unmeasured confounding.” (Divan et al., 2008).

“In a subsequent paper from this same research group it was concluded that there was “No evidence of an association between prenatal cell phone use and motor or cognitive/language developmental delays among infants at 6 and 18 months of age was observed. Even when considering dose response associations for cell phone use, associations were null.” (Divan et al, 2011).

“The only other study I have been able to locate on this topic in children concluded: “This study gives little evidence for an adverse effect of maternal cell phone use during pregnancy on the early neurodevelopment of offspring.” (Vrijheid et al., 2010).

“So, rather than established link in humans between prenatal exposure and neurodevelopmental disabilities there is to date only little evidence of an association.  This makes it irresponsible for the Aldad et al. to speculate about the adverse risks of prenatal exposure from their evidence based on mice.  It is known that elevated levels of hyperactivity can arise from genetic and a wide range of environmental factors (for example diet, institutional care and premature birth).  It may be that prenatal exposure to cellular phone radiation is another noxious experience contributing to hyperactivity (we just do not know but at present the evidence suggest it is not) but this conjecture cannot be supported by the evidence from mice reported in this paper.”

———-

Philip Asherson, Professor of Molecular Psychiatry and Honorary Consultant Psychiatrist, Institute of Psychiatry, King’s College London, said:

“There are many causes of hyperactivity in mice and most have nothing to do with ADHD. In the paper the mice are more active and less anxious, potentially meaning that they are less anxious (because anxious mice are less active than non-anxious mice).  I think it is sufficient to say that the intervention may cause changes in some aspects of behaviour and cognition – and could therefore potentially be linked to development of mental health or cognitive problems later in development. There is nothing here to make any specific link to ADHD or what (in the past) some people referred to as childhood hyperactivity.”

———–

* ‘Fetal Radiofrequency Radiation Exposure From 800-1900 Mhz-Rated Cellular Telephones Affects Neurodevelopment and Behavior in Mice‘ by Aldad, T. et al. published in Scientific Reports, Friday 16th March.

[*Effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavioural treatment for adolescents with chronic fatigue syndrome (FITNET): a randomised controlled trial, Nijhof et al, The Lancet, Published online March 1, 2012]
Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.   If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Dr Rosanne Coutts is an Accredited Exercise Physiologist and  Lecturer in Sport and Exercise Psychology at Southern Cross University

“These results are very encouraging and again demonstrate the importance of the psychological aspects within treatment processes. By using the internet, which adolescents are very familiar with, they have met them ‘where they live’. The patients also seemed fairly involved in what they did, it was quite self-driven, putting patients back in charge of their own recovery. Further detail about the actual physical activity conducted in both groups would be of interest and would assist with understanding any physiological changes that had also occurred. The study also relied on, self-report, however even with consideration for some self-reporting bias the school attendance is a clear indicator of levels of recovery.  Previous studies report a good prognosis for adolescents and this study again supports this.”

———–

International researchers report that the brain’s capacity for memory, reasoning and comprehension skills can start to deteriorate from age 45, which is 15 years earlier than it is normally thought to begin. They assessed the onset of cognitive decline by observing more than 7,000 men and women over a 10-year period from 1997.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.  Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like a copy of the paper or editorial or to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Associate Professor John Stevens is Associated Professor in the School of Health and Human Sciences at Southern Cross University. He is an academic researcher in lifestyle medicine and ageing, including dementia.

“This study examines where cognitive decline related to ageing starts to occur. The literature on this topic has suggested for years that aged related cognitive decline does not normally begin till after 60 years. This research indicates very convincingly that aged related decline is measureable in ages as early as 45 years. This is a very robust study of over 5000 people followed over more than ten years.

The results provide new insights into the processes of normal ageing. While the study was not designed to predict the relationships that might tell us when abnormal cognitive decline begins, such as with Alzheimer’s Disease, it provides an exciting, evidence based starting point for new research into this area.

The research also indicates that ‘what is good for the heart is good for the brain’ meaning that that the same lifestyle risk factors that cause abnormal decline, in heart health and function (obesity, high blood sugars, high blood pressure, hyperlipidaemia, low physical activity etc) affect the cognitive health and rate of decline of the brain in similar ways.

With populations all over the world and in Australia ageing, then new knowledge like this about the ageing brain can be added to the thinking and researching of a diverse range of paradigms including dementia, lifestyle medicine and health, education, design, I.T. and town planning, for example.”

———–

Australian and UK researchers track the course of self-harm from adolescence to young adulthood by following up Australian children in a population-based study.

There is audio available from a UK SMC briefing.

Below are comments from one of the authors and an independent researcher.

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.  Any further comments will be posted on our website here. If you would like a copy of the research, audio or to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Professor George Patton is Professorial Fellow in the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Melbourne and works with the Centre of Adolescent Health in the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute at the Royal Children’s Hospital. He is one of the paper’s seven authors.

“The study indicates that whilst self-harm is common among teenagers (reported by one-in-12 of the young people in the study), most young people give up self-harming behaviour as they enter into adulthood, probably as they develop different ways of dealing with difficult emotions. Researchers say the finding should offer some reassurance to parents of adolescents who self-harm.

Also, young people who self-harm commonly have underlying emotional problems, reflected in the high levels of depression and anxiety that were detected among those who reported self-harm. These problems do not always resolve without treatment. The researchers found that adolescents with high levels of depression and anxiety continued to have high risks for self-harm into young adulthood and stress the importance of recognising and treating persisting depression and anxiety in adolescents, as this will continue to be an important part of suicide prevention in young adults.”

———–

Professor Anthony Jorm is Professorial Fellow and NHMRC Australian Fellow at the Orygen Youth Health Research Centre at the University of Melbourne and is independent of the study.

“This is an important study, showing that self-harm is common in Australian adolescents. It shows that most of this self-harm does not involve a wish to die, as in a suicide attempt. Rather, there is a group of adolescents, mainly girls, who use cutting themselves and other non-lethal methods of self-harm to help them deal with strong negative emotions. This type of self-harm is associated with depression, high levels of anxiety, alcohol and drug use.

An implication of the study is that parents, teachers and others who have close association with adolescents, need to be able to identify and support those at risk of mental health problems, including self-harm. Mental health first aid training needs to be widely available to adults who live or work with adolescents.”

———–

You can open/download the document for this section of the budget, “Health Overview ‑ Delivering Better Hospitals, Mental Health and Health Services”, here:
http://budget.australia.gov.au/2011-12/content/download/glossy_health.pdf

Feel free to use these quotes in your stories.  Any further comments will be posted here. If you would like to speak to an expert, please don’t hesitate to contact us on (08) 7120 8666 or by email.

———–

Professor David Copolov is Pro-Vice Chancellor and Professor of Psychiatry at Monash University

“”The mental health initiatives in the 2011-12 budget are one of the most important financial commitments to Commonwealth support of mental health reform for many, many years.

I’m particularly impressed with the component  that tackles the issue of severe, debilitating and recurrent psychiatric illnesses because this is the tough end of the spectrum. The budget has included measures for care facilitators, personal helpers and has also included support for employment. Very importantly, there is money in the budget to improve the coordination of mental health care between the states and the Commonwealth Government.  That’s very important, because historically, public sector mental health care has been the preserve of the State Governments, and it’s only since the Hawke Government involvement in mental health, introduced by the then Deputy Prime Minister Brian Howe, that there has been any substantial Commonwealth commitment to this area of health. The two limbs of government haven’t coordinated their strategies very well and much more needs to be done in this regard.

The idea of setting up a National Mental Health Commission is a very good initiative, as is the strategy of developing a 10-year plan. The mental health components of the budget demonstrate long-term thinking and pave the way for an objective assessment of how mental health care is progressing in Australia. It also sets the scene for developing new service innovations, especially because it also includes dedicated and quarantined additional mental health research funding to be allocated via the National Health and Medical Research Council. So I think the mental health initiatives get many ticks, because it shows that the Commonwealth Government is serious about this vital area of health. It was also terrific to hear that there was broad support for new mental health initiatives by both the major parties and also the Greens, and that was very welcome.

My particular support for this is in the initiatives to help people with severe, debilitating and recurrent mental health problems.”

———–

Associate Professor Julian Troller is Chair, Intellectual Disability Mental Health at the University of New South Wales

“I welcome the mental health initiatives in the budget. However, the budget fails to speak to the stark disadvantage faced by people who have both an intellectual disability and a mental illness.

People with intellectual disability have high rates of mental illness but very poor access to mental health services. The complexity of this group means that specialist services are necessary to meet the mental health needs of this population. However, there is very little funding available for such specialist services and no money is available for training and education of health professionals in this needy area. The budget fails to provide for the specific needs of this population.  Australia has ratified the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disability, in which equity of access to health care (Article 25) is enshrined. It’s time funding was made available to make the aspiration goals of the UN Convention a reality for people with Intellectual Disability and mental disorders.”

———–