Cancer Research UK : Mobile phones, power lines, stress, deodorants, pesticides, air travel, hair dyes and cancer

Mobile phones, power lines, stress, deodorants, pesticides, air travel, hair dyes and cancer - the evidence

Evidence behind our messages on power lines, mobile phones, stress and others.

This page contains information about controversial cancer topics. Click on the links below to read about specific topics.

Mobile phones - Links with cancer
Mobile phones - Driving accidents
Mobile phones - How could they cause cancer?
Power lines - Childhood leukaemia
Power lines - How could they cause cancer?
Stress and cancer
Deodorants and cancer
Pesticides - Links with cancer
Pesticides - Cancer risk in agricultural workers
Air travel and cancer
Hair dye - Bladder cancer
Hair dye - Other cancers

You can find out more about the evidence behind other health topics in our other How do we know? pages.

There is no strong evidence that mobile phones can cause cancer

The vast majority of studies have found that mobile phones do no increase the risk of brain cancer or any other type.1-11 The largest study so far was a Danish study of over 420,000 people, who were studied for over 20 years. It found that even long-term mobile phone users did not have higher rates of any type of cancer.12

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is coordinating the large Interphone study, involving the UK and a dozen other countries, which is looking at the links between mobile phones and cancer in a large number of people. So far the study has found that overall, regular phone users have no increased risk of the two most common brain cancers – glioma and meningioma – or a rare benign brain tumour called acoustic neuroma.1,3,6,13

Two Interphone studies found that while, on the whole, phones were not linked to brain cancer, people were more likely to develop acoustic neuroma on the side of the head that they usually held their phone to.13,14 However, these studies are prone to bias, because they rely on people accurately remembering how they used their phones many years ago. Their answers might be influenced by reading news stories linking phones to cancer.

Mobile phone use has skyrocketed in the last few decades, the rates of brain cancer have not changed very much.15,16

There is no proven way in which mobile phones could cause cancer

Mobile phones can raise the temperature of the brain, but by no more than 0.1°C 19. These small changes are unlikely to damage DNA and influence cancer risk.

Mobile phones also transmit microwave radiation and produce electromagnetic fields (EMFs). But the weight of the evidence suggests that these effects do not damage DNA, so are unlikely to increase the risk of cancer 17.

Recently, a study found that mobile phone radiation caused laboratory cells to produce proteins called ERK1 and ERK2.20 These are involved in cell division and they are found at high levels in some cancers. But we don’t know whether this could affect the risk of cancer.

In this study, the two proteins were only produced for a short period of time. In actual tumours, ERK1 and 2 are activated strongly and for a long time. We also don’t know if these effects in isolated cells would happen in our actual bodies, where many other things affect the levels of these proteins.

Mobile phones increase the risk of driving accidents

The most important health effect of mobile phones is an increased risk of driving accidents! 17 Studies have found that using a mobile behind the wheel impairs a person’s driving ability and can quadruple someone’s chance of an accident 18. Even people talking on hands-free kits have increased risks.

Power lines may affect risk of childhood leukaemia but not adult cancer

Many researchers have investigated the health effects of electro-magnetic fields (EMFs) from power lines. These fields have been proposed to cause cancer, and especially leukaemia, but the results from many studies have been inconsistent.

In 2000, an international team of researchers analysed the results of previous studies on EMF and leukaemia. They concluded that these fields did not increase the risk of adult leukaemia. The risk of childhood leukaemia was also unaffected by most EMFs but were doubled by the exposure to the very highest levels 21. These high levels are found in only 1 in 250 homes in the UK, which on average has relatively low levels of EMFs.

This association does not necessarily mean that EMFs cause cancer. It may be caused by other factors that have not been considered. It may also be because the studies did not look at enough cases of leukaemia, or because of biases in the research.

It is unlikely that EMFs are a major cause of childhood leukaemia. The researchers from the above study estimated that less than 1% of UK leukaemia cases came from house with such high EMF levels 21. Another group said that if the link between EMFs and leukaemia was true, they would only cause one case a year.22

In the last century, the worldwide residential use of electric power has increased tremendously. But rates of childhood leukaemia have not correspondingly increased 23.

Nonetheless, this study has been taken seriously by a number of health organisations 24-26. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified EMFs as a ‘possible’ cause of cancer 27. And the World Health Organisation have stated that the evidence is still uncertain, but warrants more research 26.

Scientists have not firmly established how EMFs could cause cancer

To strength the idea that EMFs cause leukaemia, scientists would need to identify the means in which this would happen. A few theories have been proposed but they are controversial and are so far unproven.

One theory is that charged regions near power lines could concentrate airborne pollutants. These could then be deposited in the lungs or on the skin 28. A report by the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) said that the idea is plausible, but the effect would probably be small, even in the most affected people 29. Another review said that the effect would be swamped by air currents or gravity 30.

Another theory is that EMFs could cause cancer by preventing the body from making melatonin 31. Melatonin is a hormone that regulates our body clock and may protect DNA from damage 32. Some studies have found that EMFs can reduce the levels of melatonin in people. But the NRPB says that the laboratory evidence for this idea is inconsistent, and that most of the evidence from human studies argues against it 33. It will need to be tested in large-scale studies.

Until a plausible theory has been firmly established, we cannot say that EMFs are a cause of cancer. It could be that there is a third factor that indirectly links EMFs to leukaemia.

There is no convincing evidence that stress causes cancer

Most studies looking on stress and cancer have focused on breast cancer. Some have found that stressful events increase the risk of breast cancer 34,35 but many others have disagreed 36-39. One study even found that highly stressed women have 40% lower risks of breast cancer than those with low stress levels. This could be because stress lowers oestrogen levels 40.

Researchers who have reviewed all the available evidence have concluded that there is no link or at most, a weak one 41-43.

Many of the studies that linked stress and breast cancer may not have been powerful or accurate enough. They often investigated small numbers of people, had inconsistent definitions of ‘stress’, and failed to factor in other breast cancer risk factors 44. In many studies, people with cancer were asked to recall if they were stressed before their diagnosis. They may therefore have overestimated their past problems to try and explain their condition 44.

One study found that people who were stressed were more likely to smoke, be overweight or obese, and be physically inactive 45. All these can cause cancer, but are only indirect effects of stress.

While it seems that stress does not cause breast cancer, it is unclear if it could worsen the progression of the disease once it has developed.43

There is no convincing evidence that deodorants cause breast cancer.

This claim started because of a hoax e-mail containing incorrect and misleading information 46. In 2002, a large study of 1,600 women found that antiperspirants and deodorants did not increase the risk of breast cancer 47.

Two later studies claimed to find a link but both were very weak. The first found that women who used deodorants and shaved regularly were diagnosed with breast cancer at an earlier age than those who didn’t. But this study looked at very few women and didn’t compare them to people without breast cancer. So all it really showed was that women who use deodorants tend to be younger! 48

The second study found traces of parabens, a chemical found in some deodorants, in breast tumours 49. But this is no surprise - breast tumours have large blood supplies and are likely to contain traces of everything in our blood 46. These findings raised concerns that parabens could mimic oestrogen, the human hormone that increases breast cancer risk at high levels. But laboratory research showed that it would have to be 500 to 10,000 more potent to do this.

Breast cancers are more common in the upper outer region. This is not because this is the region sprayed by deodorants, but because this area contains the most breast tissue 50.

Recently, a small study found higher levels of aluminium in the part of the breast nearest the skin, in 17 women with breast cancer. Even though there is no evidence that aluminium can cause cancer in humans or animals, the study speculated that aluminium in deodorants might cause breast cancer. 51

But they didn’t compare these levels of aluminium to those in other parts of the women’s bodies, to levels in healthy women or to any ‘safe’ reference levels. Without these controls, there is no way to say if aluminium could be affecting the risk of breast cancer. However, there is no strong evidence that aluminium could increase the risk of cancer in animals or humans.

Traces of pesticides on fruit and vegetables are unlikely to cause cancer

The International Agency for Research into Cancer (IARC) classified several types of pesticides as ‘possibly’ or ‘probably’ causing cancer in humans 52. Fruit and vegetables may contain very small amounts of pesticides. At such low doses, they are unlikely to cause cancer and there is no strong evidence to suggest a danger.

A group of pesticides called organochlorines, including the infamous DDT, are similar to oestrogen, a human hormone that can promote breast cancers at very high levels. But the vast majority of studies have consistently found no link between these chemicals and breast cancer 53-55 or other types of cancer56. And women with breast cancer tend to have the same levels of these chemicals as those without it 54.

People who work with pesticides may have increased cancer risks

People whose jobs involve applying pesticides to crops may be exposed to a much higher concentration of these chemicals. Many studies have suggested that these people may have increased risks of several cancers including leukaemias, lymphomas, prostate cancer and others 57-59.

In most cases, the increased risks were small, or backed up by few or flawed studies. More research is needed to determine how important these risks are and whether preventative measures are needed for these specific groups of people.

Commercial air travel is very unlikely to affect your cancer risk but pilots and air cabin crew may have some increased risks

Passengers on commercial airlines receive doses of ‘cosmic radiation’ from space. But these doses are very small and are unlikely to affect their cancer risk 60.

Pilots and air cabin staff are exposed to more radiation but this is still thought to be within safe limits. But some studies have consistently found that pilots have a higher risk of 61-63. A large Scandinavian study of male pilots found that those with long careers had triple the average skin cancer risks 64. Male pilots may also have a slightly increased prostate cancer risk 64.

Even so, this may not be due to radiation exposure. Sun exposure is the main cause of skin cancers. While aircraft windows block out most UV radiation 65, it could be that pilots spend more time in hotter climates than most 64.

Female air cabin staff may also have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer, but the evidence is inconsistent and the reasons are unclear 61,66-68. For instance, air travel may disrupt body clocks and alter hormone levels, which might explain any increased breast or prostate cancer risks 64. But a recent study concluded that the excess risk was more likely to be due to established breast cancer risk factors 69. For example, stewardesses are also more likely to have no children, or to have them at a later age, which are both breast cancer risk factors 70.

There is some evidence that air crews have slightly increased leukaemia risks 71,72, but at this time, it is still inconsistent 64.

There is no strong evidence to link hair dyes to bladder cancer but we can’t rule out a risk

In the 1970s some hair dye ingredients were found to damage DNA and cause cancer in animals 73. But since then, the use of these chemicals has been discontinued and modern dyes are thought to be much safer.

Some studies have found that hair dyes increases the risk of bladder cancer 74 while others have not 75. But hair dyes are unlikely to be a major bladder cancer risk factor. In recent decades, bladder cancer rates have not increased in hairdressers, who come into the most contact with hair dyes 76. In 2004, a large analysis of 79 earlier studies concluded that hair dyes did not increase the risk of bladder cancer 77.

Hair dyes contain small amounts of chemicals called arylamines. Arylamines may cause cancer 78, although we have genes that render them harmless. But some people have different versions of these genes, which are not as good at processing arylamines. These people may have an increased risk of bladder cancer if they use hair dyes regularly over a long period of time 79.

Hair dyes are unlikely to increase the risk of other cancers

Many studies, including the recent analysis, showed that hair dyes are not strongly linked leukaemias or lymphomas. There was either no risk or an extremely small one 77,80-83. A couple of studies have found that hair dyes increased the risk of lymphoma, but only in women who used dyes before 1970 or 1980. As mentioned earlier, modern dyes are much safer 84,85.

Studies have also consistently shown that hair dyes are unrelated to the risk of breast cancer 86,87.

The few studies which linked hair dyes and cancer found that only permanent hair dyes were a potential problem 85,88,89. So if you are concerned about hair dyes, you may wish to switch to semi-permanent types.

References

Lonn, S., et al., Long-term mobile phone use and brain tumor risk. Am J Epidemiol, 2005. 161: p. 526-35.PubMed
Klaeboe, L., K.G. Blaasaas, and T. Tynes, Use of mobile phones in Norway and risk of intracranial tumours. Eur J Cancer Prev, 2007. 16(2): p. 158-64.PubMed
Schuz, J., et al., Cellular phones, cordless phones, and the risks of glioma and meningioma (Interphone Study Group, Germany). Am J Epidemiol, 2006. 163(6): p. 512-20.PubMed
Lahkola, A., K. Tokola, and A. Auvinen, Meta-analysis of mobile phone use and intracranial tumors. Scand J Work Environ Health, 2006. 32(3): p. 171-7.PubMed
Hepworth, S.J., et al., Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in adults: case-control study. Bmj, 2006. 332(7546): p. 883-7.PubMed
Berg, G., et al., Occupational exposure to radio frequency/microwave radiation and the risk of brain tumors: Interphone Study Group, Germany. Am J Epidemiol, 2006. 164(6): p. 538-48.PubMed
Christensen, H.C., et al., Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: a population-based, incident case-control study. Neurology, 2005. 64(7): p. 1189-95.PubMed
Lahkola, A., et al., Mobile phone use and risk of glioma in 5 North European countries. Int J Cancer, 2007. 120(8): p. 1769-1775.PubMed
Inskip, P.D., et al., Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors. N Engl J Med, 2001. 344(2): p. 79-86.PubMed
Auvinen, A., et al., Brain tumors and salivary gland cancers among cellular telephone users. Epidemiology, 2002. 13(3): p. 356-9.PubMed
Muscat, J.E., et al., Handheld cellular telephone use and risk of brain cancer. Jama, 2000. 284(23): p. 3001-7.PubMed
Schuz, J., et al., Cellular telephone use and cancer risk: update of a nationwide Danish cohort. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2006. 98(23): p. 1707-13.PubMed
Schoemaker, M.J., et al., Mobile phone use and risk of acoustic neuroma: results of the Interphone case-control study in five North European countries. Br J Cancer, 2005.PubMed
Lonn, S., et al., Mobile phone use and the risk of acoustic neuroma. Epidemiology, 2004. 15(6): p. 653-9.PubMed
Muscat, J.E., M. Hinsvark, and M. Malkin, Mobile Telephones and Rates of Brain Cancer. Neuroepidemiology, 2006. 27(1): p. 55-56.PubMed
Cook, A., et al., Cellular telephone use and time trends for brain, head and neck tumours. N Z Med J, 2003. 116(1175): p. U457.PubMed
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, Mobile Phones and Health. 2000, London.
Redelmeier, D.A. and R.J. Tibshirani, Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. N Engl J Med, 1997. 336(7): p. 453-8.PubMed
Van Leeuwen, G.M., et al., Calculation of change in brain temperatures due to exposure to a mobile phone. Phys Med Biol, 1999. 44(10): p. 2367-79.PubMed
Friedman, J., et al., Mechanism of short-term ERK activation by electromagnetic fields at mobile phone frequencies. Biochem J, 2007. 405(3): p. 559-68.PubMed
Ahlbom, A., et al., A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br J Cancer, 2000. 83: p. 692-8.PubMed
Kheifets, L., A.A. Afifi, and R. Shimkhada, Public health impact of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields. Environ Health Perspect, 2006. 114(10): p. 1532-7.PubMed
Jackson, J., Are the stray 60-Hz electromagnetic fields associated with the distribution and use of electric power a significant cause of cancer? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1992. 89: p. 3508-10.PubMed
NRPB, Advice on Limiting Exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (0-300 GHz), in Documents of the NRPB Vol 15, No 2. 2004.
AGNIR, ELF Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer: Report of an Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation. 2001, NPRB.
WHO, Fact sheet N°263: Electromagnetic fields and public health: extremely low frequency fields and cancer. 2001.
IARC, Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Vol. 80. 2002, Lyon: IARCPress.
Fews, A.P., et al., Corona ions from powerlines and increased exposure to pollutant aerosols. Int J Radiat Biol, 1999. 75(12): p. 1523-31.PubMed
National Radiological Protection Board, Particle Deposition in the Vicinity of Power Lines and Possible Effects on Health:Report of an independent Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation and its Ad Hoc Group on Corona Ions. NPRB, 2004. 15: p. 3-62.
Swanson, J. and D. Jeffers, Possible mechanisms by which electric fields from power lines might affect airborne particles harmful to health. J Radiol Prot, 1999. 19: p. 213-29.PubMed
Henshaw, D.L. and R.J. Reiter, Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics, 2005. 26(S7): p. S86-S97.PubMed
Henshaw, D.L. and R.J. Reiter, Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics, 2005.PubMed
NRPB, ELF Electromagnetic Fields and the Risk of Cancer: Report of an Advisory Group on Non-Ionising Radiation, in Documents of the NRPB Vol 12, No 1. 2004.
Lillberg, K., et al., Stressful life events and risk of breast cancer in 10,808 women: a cohort study. Am J Epidemiol, 2003. 157: p. 415-423.PubMed
Helgesson, O., et al., Self-reported stress levels predict subsequent breast cancer in a cohort of Swedish women. Eur J Cancer Prev, 2003. 12: p. 377-381.PubMed
Achat, H., et al., A prospective study of job strain and risk of breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol, 2000. 29: p. 622-628.PubMed
Schernhammer, E., et al., Job stress and breast cancer risk: the nurses' health study. Am J Epidemiol, 2004. 160: p. 1079-1086.PubMed
Lillberg, K., et al., Stress of daily activities and risk of breast cancer: a prospective cohort study in Finland. Int J Cancer, 2001. 91: p. 888-893.PubMed
Protheroe, D., et al., Stressful life events and difficulties and onset of breast cancer: case-control study. BMJ, 1999. 319: p. 1027-1030.PubMed
Nielsen, N.R., et al., Self reported stress and risk of breast cancer: prospective cohort study. Bmj, 2005.PubMed
McKenna, M., et al., Psychosocial factors and the development of breast cancer: a meta-analysis. Health Psychol, 1999. 18: p. 520-31.PubMed
Duijts, S., M. Zeegers, and B. Borne, The association between stressful life events and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis. Int J Cancer, 2003. 107: p. 1023-1029.PubMed
Nielsen, N.R. and M. Gronbaek, Stress and breast cancer: a systematic update on the current knowledge. Nat Clin Pract Oncol, 2006. 3(11): p. 612-20.PubMed
Burke, M. and K. Goodkin, Stress and the development of breast cancer: a persistent and popular link despite contrary evidence. Cancer, 1997. 79: p. 1055-1059.PubMed
Honda, K., R. Goodwin, and A. Neugut, The associations between psychological distress and cancer prevention practices. Cancer Detect Prev, 2005. 29: p. 25-36.PubMed
Surendran, A., Studies linking breast cancer to deodorants smell rotten, experts say. Nat Med, 2004. 10(3): p. 216.PubMed
Mirick, D.K., S. Davis, and D.B. Thomas, Antiperspirant use and the risk of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2002. 94(20): p. 1578-80.PubMed
McGrath, K.G., An earlier age of breast cancer diagnosis related to more frequent use of antiperspirants/deodorants and underarm shaving. Eur J Cancer Prev, 2003. 12(6): p. 479-85.PubMed
Darbre, P.D., et al., Concentrations of parabens in human breast tumours. J Appl Toxicol, 2004. 24(1): p. 5-13.PubMed
Lee, A.H., Why is carcinoma of the breast more frequent in the upper outer quadrant? A case series based on needle core biopsy diagnoses. Breast, 2005. 14(2): p. 151-2.PubMed
Exley, C., et al., Aluminium in human breast tissue. J Inorg Biochem, 2007. 101(9): p. 1344-6.PubMed
WHO and IARC, Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: DDT and Associated Compounds. 1997, Lyon: IARCPress.Link
Laden, F., G. Collman, and K. Iwamoto, Dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl)ethylene and polychlorinated biphenyls and breast cacner: Combined analysis of five US studies. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2001. 93: p. 768-776.PubMed
Calle, E., et al., Organochlorines and breast cancer risk. CA Cancer J Clin, 2002. 52: p. 301-309.PubMed
Lopez-Cervantes, M., et al., Dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane burden and breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis of the epidemiologic evidence. Environ Health Perspect, 2004. 112: p. 207-214.PubMed
Purdue, M.P., et al., Occupational exposure to organochlorine insecticides and cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Int J Cancer, 2006.PubMed
Keller-Byrne, J., et al., A meta-analysis of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among farmers in the central United States. Am J Ind Med, 1997. 31: p. 442-444.PubMed
Alavanja, M.C., J.A. Hoppin, and F. Kamel, Health effects of chronic pesticide exposure: cancer and neurotoxicity. Ann Rev Public Health, 2004. 25: p. 155-197.PubMed
Van Maele-Fabry, G., et al., Review and Meta-analysis of Risk Estimates for Prostate Cancer in Pesticide Manufacturing Workers. Cancer Causes Control, 2006. 17(4): p. 353-73.PubMed
Boyle, P., et al., European Code Against Cancer and scientific justification: third version (2003). Ann Oncol, 2003. 14(7): p. 973-1005.PubMed
Tokumaru, O., et al., Incidence of cancer among female flight attendants: a meta-analysis. J Travel Med, 2006. 13(3): p. 127-32.PubMed
Blettner, M., et al., Mortality from cancer and other causes among male airline cockpit crew in Europe. Int J Cancer, 2003. 106(6): p. 946-52.PubMed
Zeeb, H., et al., Mortality from cancer and other causes among airline cabin attendants in Europe: a collaborative cohort study in eight countries. Am J Epidemiol, 2003. 158(1): p. 35-46.PubMed
Pukkala, E., et al., Incidence of cancer among Nordic airline pilots over five decades: occupational cohort study. Bmj, 2002. 325(7364): p. 567.PubMed
Diffey, B.L. and A.H. Roscoe, Exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation in flight. Aviat Space Environ Med, 1990. 61(11): p. 1032-5.PubMed
Haldorsen, T., J.B. Reitan, and U. Tveten, Cancer incidence among Norwegian airline cabin attendants. Int J Epidemiol, 2001. 30(4): p. 825-30.PubMed
Rafnsson, V., et al., Breast cancer risk in airline cabin attendants: a nested case-control study in Iceland. Occup Environ Med, 2003. 60(11): p. 807-9.PubMed
Pukkala, E., A. Auvinen, and G. Wahlberg, Incidence of cancer among Finnish airline cabin attendants, 1967-92. Bmj, 1995. 311(7006): p. 649-52.PubMed
Kojo, K., E. Pukkala, and A. Auvinen, Breast cancer risk among Finnish cabin attendants: a nested case-control study. Occup Environ Med, 2005. 62(7): p. 488-93.PubMed
Boice, J.D., Jr., M. Blettner, and A. Auvinen, Epidemiologic studies of pilots and aircrew. Health Phys, 2000. 79(5): p. 576-84.PubMed
Band, P.R., et al., Cohort study of Air Canada pilots: mortality, cancer incidence, and leukemia risk. Am J Epidemiol, 1996. 143(2): p. 137-43.PubMed
Gundestrup, M. and H.H. Storm, Radiation-induced acute myeloid leukaemia and other cancers in commercial jet cockpit crew: a population-based cohort study. Lancet, 1999. 354(9195): p. 2029-31.PubMed
Ames, B.N., H.O. Kammen, and E. Yamasaki, Hair dyes are mutagenic: identification of a variety of mutagenic ingredients. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 1975. 72(6): p. 2423-7.PubMed
Gago-Dominguez, M., et al., Use of permanent hair dyes and bladder-cancer risk. Int J Cancer, 2001. 91(4): p. 575-9.PubMed
Hartge, P., et al., Use of hair dyes and risk of bladder cancer. Cancer Res, 1982. 42(11): p. 4784-7.PubMed
Czene, K., S. Tiikkaja, and K. Hemminki, Cancer risks in hairdressers: assessment of carcinogenicity of hair dyes and gels. Int J Cancer, 2003. 105(1): p. 108-12.PubMed
Takkouche, B., M. Etminan, and A. Montes-Martinez, Personal use of hair dyes and risk of cancer: a meta-analysis. Jama, 2005. 293(20): p. 2516-25.PubMed
Yu, M.C., et al., Arylamine exposures and bladder cancer risk. Mutat Res, 2002. 506-507: p. 21-8.PubMed
Gago-Dominguez, M., et al., Permanent hair dyes and bladder cancer: risk modification by cytochrome P4501A2 and N-acetyltransferases 1 and 2. Carcinogenesis, 2003. 24(3): p. 483-9.PubMed
Tavani, A., et al., Hair dye use and risk of lymphoid neoplasms and soft tissue sarcomas. Int J Cancer, 2005. 113(4): p. 629-31.PubMed
Correa, A., et al., Use of hair dyes, hematopoietic neoplasms, and lymphomas: a literature review. I. Leukemias and myelodysplastic syndromes. Cancer Invest, 2000. 18(4): p. 366-80.PubMed
Altekruse, S.F., S.J. Henley, and M.J. Thun, Deaths from hematopoietic and other cancers in relation to permanent hair dye use in a large prospective study (United States). Cancer Causes Control, 1999. 10(6): p. 617-25.PubMed
Grodstein, F., et al., A prospective study of permanent hair dye use and hematopoietic cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, 1994. 86(19): p. 1466-70.PubMed
de Sanjose, S., et al., Association between Personal Use of Hair Dyes and Lymphoid Neoplasms in Europe. Am J Epidemiol, 2006.PubMed
Zhang, Y., et al., Hair-coloring product use and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: a population-based case-control study in Connecticut. Am J Epidemiol, 2004. 159(2): p. 148-54.PubMed
Zheng, T., et al., Use of hair colouring products and breast cancer risk: a case-control study in Connecticut. Eur J Cancer, 2002. 38(12): p. 1647-52.PubMed
Cook, L.S., et al., Hair product use and the risk of breast cancer in young women. Cancer Causes Control, 1999. 10(6): p. 551-9.PubMed
Andrew, A.S., et al., Bladder cancer risk and personal hair dye use. Int J Cancer, 2004. 109(4): p. 581-6.PubMed
Rauscher, G.H., D. Shore, and D.P. Sandler, Hair dye use and risk of adult acute leukemia. Am J Epidemiol, 2004. 160(1): p. 19-25.PubMed