The disparity between the rates of breast cancer in industrialized and less-industrialized regions has led to many hypotheses, including the theory that exposure to light-at-night and/or electromagnetic fields (EMF) may suppress melatonin and that reduced melatonin may increase the risk of breast cancer. In this comprehensive review we consider strengths and weaknesses of more than 35 residential and occupational epidemiologic studies that investigated the association between EMF and breast cancer. Although most of the epidemiologic data do not provide strong support for an association between EMF and breast cancer, because of the limited statistical power as well as the possibility of misclassification and bias present in much of the existing data, it is not possible to rule out a relationship between EMF and breast cancer. We make several specific recommendations for future studies carefully designed to test the melatonin-breast cancer and EMF-breast cancer hypotheses. Future study designs should have sufficient statistical power to detect small to moderate associations; include comprehensive exposure assessments that estimate residential and occupational exposures, including shift work; focus on a relevant time period; control for known breast cancer risks; and pay careful attention to menopausal and estrogen receptor status.

In this study, we demonstrate the complexities of performing a sibling analysis with a re-examination of associations between cell phone exposures and behavioral problems observed previously in the Danish National Birth Cohort. Children (52,680; including 5441 siblings) followed up to age 7 were included. We examined differences in exposures and behavioral problems between siblings and non-siblings and by birth order and birth year. We estimated associations between cell phone exposures and behavioral problems while accounting for the random family effect among siblings. The association of behavioral problems with both prenatal and postnatal exposure differed between siblings (odds ratio (OR): 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.69-1.66) and non-siblings (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.36-1.74) and within siblings by birth order; the association was strongest for first-born siblings (OR: 1.72; 95% CI: 0.86-3.42) and negative for later-born siblings (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.31-1.25), which may be because of increases in cell phone use with later birth year. Sibling analysis can be a powerful tool for (partially) accounting for confounding by invariant unmeasured within-family factors, but it cannot account for uncontrolled confounding by varying family-level factors, such as those that vary with time and birth order. © 2014 Nature America, Inc. All rights reserved.