Studies on RF Radiation and Cancer
April 20th, 2010
|
| Share |
There are literally thousands of studies that have been done on the effects of RF radiation, such as from mobile phones or other consumer wireless devices. Here are a few of the best, largest studies that have been conducted by objective groups, respected researchers and published in peer reviewed journals. While some very narrow and fringe studies have slipped through and been published, the following represent the largest, longest term and most highly regarded studies to date.
Major Scientific Studies and Conclusions:
2001: A major study by the Danish Cancer Society and the International Epidemiology Institute reviewed the cancer incidence of over 400,000 Danish cell phone users who began using their phones between 1982 and 1995. The study included many early adopters who had been heavy users of the technology since the early 1980’s. The rates of cancer and other diseases were compared to the expected incidence for the Danish population within similar demographics. No increase whatsoever was detected in the cell phone users.
Further analysis found that cancer incidence showed no correlation to the number of years of cell phone use, the frequency of cell phone use, the age of the user or the type of service – analog or digital. Those who were heavy cell phone users, using their phones for an average of many hours a month showed no increase risk over those who rarely used their phones. Those who had been using their phones for many years also showed no increase in risk over those who had used their phones for only a short time.
2004: Data from the 2001 study conducted in Denmark was reviewed and the groups were reexamined to determine whether there had been any change in incidence since the 2001 study was published. Again, the results indicated no detectable increase in cancer risk associated with phone usage.
2005: A very large case-control study was conducted in Sweden to assess the possibility of a correlation between cellular telephone usage and cancer risk. The study involved over 1000 individuals between the ages of twenty and sixty who were diagnosed with brain cancer, specifically glioma and meningioma. The study collected detailed data including whether the individuals had owned a mobile phone, the type of phone, the length of time it was owned and the amount of time on the phone. This was compared to a random sample of the same demographics. The study concluded that there was no detectable correlation between the usage of cell phones and development of cancer. The cancer patients did not have a higher probability of being a heavy or long time user of a cell phone. The authors of the study concluded “the data do not support the hypothesis that mobile phone use is related to an increased risk of glioma or meningioma.”
2005: A very large study published in the British Journal of Cancer and the Journal Nature. This study was multi-part and used several different methodologies in an attempt to determine if any relationship between mobile phone usage cancer of the brain and head region could be established. It compared the mobile phone usage of hundreds of cancer patients to similar demographics and thousands of case controls, randomly selected to be of the same demographic. Like the Swedish study, no correlation could be found. The study also reviewed medical histories of those who had reported being long time mobile phone users and found that heavy use of a mobile phone could not be correlated with any increase in risk of cancer versus the expected incidence of those surveyed.
2006: A very large multi-year study was conducted in Germany and involved several major cancer research organizations as well as metaanlysis of data from previous studies. Although the study did involve mobile phones, it also include users of cordless phones and other frequent users of RF devices, including former users of 450 mhz C-Net radiotelephone and dispatch radio, which has largely been phased out of common usage since the early 1990’s. The study examined rates of glioma, meningioma and benign tumors of the head and neck region as well as overall incidence of cancer. The study found no correlation between usage of mobile or cordless phones or other RF devices of any kind and cancer risk.
Official Positions:
World Health Organization: The WHO has stated that the consensus of scientific data, it is “unlikely” that there is any causal relationship between RF radiation and cancer. The WHO has also stated that no scientific data exists to show any clear relationship between exposure to RF radiation and any medical condition.
Health Physics Society: According to HPS’s most recent fact sheet “Currently available evidence shows that use of mobile phones or exposure to their base-station emissions does not cause brain cancer or any other health effect.”
International Electrical and Electronic Engineers: The IEEE advisory committee on RF radiation exposure helped establish guideline recommendations that were adopted as national standards by a number of countries. The IEEE recognizes no established risk between rf radiation and cancer, despite numerous studies into the area and states “In summary, there is no evidence, from laboratory or epidemiology studies, that exposure to RF energy at levels below recommended limits has any health significance for humans.”
National Cancer Institute (United States): The national cancer institute states that there is no evidence to indicate a link between RF radiation and increased risk of cancer. NCI does, however, maintain that it is possible that there is an increased risk which does not manifest until after many years of exposure. Thus far, all major studies reviewed by NCI have found zero significant increase in cancer incidence by users of cell phones or other mobile devices.
The American Cancer Society: The American Cancer Society does not consider RF radiation to be a likely risk factor for the development of cancer. Like NCI, the American Cancer Society does cite the remote possibility that significant risks may exist after more than 20 years of usage, but stresses this is not likely both due to the fact that no risk whatsoever has been detected in existing studies. ACS also notes that laboratory data supports this conclusion, stating “the RF waves given off by cell phones don’t have enough energy to damage DNA directly. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren’t able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.”
The Centers for Disease Control (US): The official position statement of CDC on the topic of RF radiation like that produced by cell phone is “Although some studies have raised concerns, the scientific research, when taken together, does not indicate a significant association between cell phone use and health effects.”
Sense About Science (British Organization for Science Literacy and Science Reporting): A number of experts from Sense About Science have weighed in on the issue and released an excellent scientifically reviewed primer and position statement on the issue. (PDF) The scientists at Sense about Science stress the difference between non-ionizing radiation and ionizing radiation. They state “There are no known biological effects from mobile phone RF Radiation” and “There is no evidence that ‘pulsing’ of EMF radiation is dangerous.”
The Royal Society of Canada: A report prepared by the Royal Society of Canada concluded that there is no reliable evidence of any human biological effects from RF radiation emitted from mobile phones or other consumer devices. The expert review panel stated “it appears that exposure of the public to radiofrequency fields emitted from wireless telecommunication base station transmitters is of sufficiently low intensity that biological or adverse health effects are not anticipated.”
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (UK): The final report of the independent expert group, known as the “Stewart Report” examined all available data on RF radiation and cancer. While the panel did leave open the possibility that an increased risk may manifest after many decades of exposure, it could not find any scientific evidence that would indicate this is a likelihood. The report states “The balance of evidence to date suggests that exposures to RF radiation below NRPB and ICNIRP guidelines do not cause adverse health effects to the general population.” The report did, however, indicate that there is a significant possibility that cell phone usage could cause indirect health effects. The two examples cited were car accidents caused by distracted drivers and psychological stress caused by fear of radiation.
Several organizations, such as ACS and NCI do temper their stand on the issue by invoking the possibility that there could be longer term risks, but acknowledge this is not indicated by existing data. It should be noted that even when cancers take an average of decades to develop, one would still expect at least some increase in risk to manifest earlier in some patients. For example, in cigarette smokers, the average time before cancer develops is about 20 years. However, a person who has been smoking for ten years is still more likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer than a non-smoker and a smoker of 15 years is even more likely to be diagnosed with cancer. There is a bell curve of time response. There are no known carcinogens that produce zero risk of cancer increase until decades of exposure and then suddenly produce an increase risk almost overnight.
Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones goes the furthest. While the group admits that there is zero evidence to indicate any increased risk of cancer, it recommends a “precautionary approach,” citing the remote possibility of an as yet undiscovered risk. Most other organizations do not agree with this stand and it is likely politically influenced.
Scaremongering special interest groups like “Bioiniative” and assclowns like George Carlo and Leonard Hardell are not reliable sources. Any source that begins with the premise of a grand conspiracy and makes claims rejected by mainstream science should be regarded as unreliable. No credible mainstream scientific bodies agree with such organizations. While these organizations may claim that they can produce scientific data that prove their claims, their ability to do so is simply a case of dishonesty.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 20th, 2010 at 8:49 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, Obfuscation, Politics, inverse square, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
October 1st, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Shafe said:
For proof of this see here:
http://www.boingboing.net/2010/10/01/anti-smoking-sign-fr.html
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
It’s been a while so I have a few responses:
- I have more than a little knowledge and did go to university (chem eng to 3rd year, 3yrs college, 3 trade certs.)
- the damage I am talking about is DNA damage due to the direct breaking of bonds – Not cell damage due to heating
- I forgot to mention the FCC label was on a radio
- The fact the to general public did not know that tobacco (not just cigs) is dangerous was my point – it was kept secret due to financial concerns – big tobacco was successfully sued because they knew
- As stated 3g uses even higher frequencies than those shown to cause DNA damage (about 1Ghz)
- FCC regs neglect to take constructive interference into account, safety factors are to allow for effects that are unforeseen and others that have been considered negligible in calculations, doubling the intensity through constructive interference eats up a lot of safety factor
- FCC regs for cell phones were originally based on military allowable limits, look up “acceptable loses”
- Allowable limits are often high due to preexisting exposure that can’t be mitigated, formaldehyde and mercury are a good examples.
- peer review is simply accomplished by having scientists on the pay roll, industry pays the bills and decides the bias
- acute damage is caused using current (but pre 3g) power levels in a room causing constructive interference. people often use cell phones chronically. Behavioral effects happen at much lower levels.
- a lot of smokers I talked to thought that the studies showing the risks were falsified by the government to excuse tax increases and maybe make tobacco illegal, this believe was re-enforced by truly false studies released by big tobacco
- until this issue is resolved to my satisfaction I will go with the basic science and err on the side of safety by not using cell phones.
- To the odd suggestion that I don’t have any friends:
My friends (of which I have plenty) will continue to bug me about not having a cell phone since they use cell phones and would prefer to believe they are safe , also they have a misplaced faith in industry and government to protect their health. (government protection is generally too little too late since they don’t want to hamper industry too much).
While I will continue to suffer from the minor inconvenience of not being in touch with everyone all the time no matter where I am.
When the 20 year case study is complete we will know who was right. Hopefully I am wrong.
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
Fixx said:
Which turns out to be the same tedious litany of appeal to authority, statements based on misinterpreted and superficial understanding of the science, claims of corruption & conspiracy, tobacco revisionism, and anecdotal reports, that we have seen countless times before.
Fixx said:
You have apparently mistaken us for people that care how your paranoia impacts your private life.
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Fixx said:
You should have studied harder. Most of your “knowledge” is little more than drivelling nonsense.
What’s worse is that most of it has already been covered on this blog. Do some research next time, please. You can start with the following:
Smoking and Cancer: How Did We Miss that One? Or Did We?
Cell Phones More Dangerous Than Smoking?
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Fixx said:
Where’d you get a phone that emits gamma rays from?
Fixx said:
I never knew 3G used higher frequencies than visible light.
Nor did I know that the same frequencies that were used for 2G and which are now also used for 3G are now higher since the switch to 3G.
Fixx said:
You can avoid using them if you want, I myself avoid having one, but not because I believe it harmful to me.
Fixx said:
We don’t need to wait so long.
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
To DV82XL:
If you think money does not run the world then you must still be living at home with your parents. If you think corruption does not exist then I admire your idealism. If you think conspiracies do not exist then you may not know the proper meaning of the word. I believe corruption exists (since it is uncovered on a regular basis) and is somewhat proportional to the amount of money involved.
My point WRT to inconvenience was that I chose not to risk my safety for the sake of convenience. My paranoia is between me and the people watching me, perhaps you have misunderstand this word as well. As an aside, I have heard that paranoia is one of the behavioral effects of even low doses of cell phone radiation.
To BMS:
I was generally top of my class. On this particular subject I did a fair bit of research long before this article and then some more before commenting on the article. I looked at scientific studies presented by both camps and sifted through the biases to consider the raw results. Thanks for the links but I had already read those an remained unconvinced that cell phones are definitely safe. Doing research only on a site dedicated to one side of an argument is not very scientific. You should look elsewhere as well.
To ANON:
While there is no direct correlation between the 2G 3G and the frequencies they use, there is a trend towards higher frequencies over time (apparently to allow for more users). So while 3G uses the lower frequencies that are also used by 2G it also uses higher frequencies not used by 2G (being an older protocol). I will concede that by referring to the protocols I muddied my point that modern frequencies are higher than those already shown to cause DNA damage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_frequencies
Gamma rays are not the only thing that damage DNA.
Cell phones operate at between about 900Mhz and 2.2Ghz (2.7Ghz is coming) whereas damage already starts occurring at 1Ghz. I don’t know where visible light comes anywhere near what I said but sorry if I was unclear.
I’m not surprised to here you are so sure that you are right. Hopefully your strong sense of pride will be enough to shield you from the possibly damaging radiation you are exposing yourself to for the sake of convenience.
WRT to research:
Obviously I cannot spew out all the research that I have done on various frequencies (1Hz to 2Ghz) and how they affect living organisms. However I will refer to one person’s work just in case anyone here is of a truly scientific mind and willing to research beyond this site. Search for Dr. Royal Rife on the internet. He found that radiation could kill simple organisms by using relatively low frequencies that resonated with their DNA molecules. These are relatively low frequencies but are proportional to the complexity of the organism. I researched this guy years ago and, although his work has been abandoned by the mainstream, I didn’t find any studies or even opinions that suggested he was wrong.
I have also studied a little psychology over the years and apparently the human mind has a powerful need to believe that an answer is known (and that we know it). This is contrary to the scientific method and leads to zealots claiming they are right and all others are wrong. They is a big difference between “believing you know” and “knowing you believe”. I would prefer to be aware that I do not have all the answers and could very well be wrong on any issue, including this one. An example of “believing you know” is all those who suggested that I have not done any research regardless of the fact that they do not know me at all. Radiation has been a pet subject of mine since grade 6 so I know plenty about it.
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Fixx – You have zero credibility with any of us here. You are lying about your education, or you have deluded yourself into believing you know what you are talking about, but to us you sound like a fool. Your reasoning is weak, and is based on unprovable assumptions. It does not matter how often you post here, you will not be taken seriously, because of what you have already written.
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
lol
Wow DV82XL that was a quick vote to get a consensus of everyone’s opinion of me
Your attempts at character assassination suggest only that you have not read or not understood my position on this subject. It also shows that you are reacting emotionally instead of logically, I’m sorry if I offended you by suggesting that you are an idealist 
Rest assured that I could care less about your opinion of my credibility but my educational background is a fact as is the research that I have done on this particular subject. As to the other possibility you mentioned, I will leave delusion to the zealots. I am quite aware that I do not have all the facts and that some facts may be wrong – are you?
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 6:58 pm
Fixx said:
I don’t see anyone taking you seriously here, do you.
Fixx said:
You have not presented anything that come close to logic
Fixx said:
You can’t write the sort of tripe you are trying to float here and make any claims whatsoever. You present no evidence and you make sweeping statements, and think you should be taken seriously. Much of what you write is categorically wrong. You in fact insulting us, by thinking we are stupid enough to not see right thorough you.
Yes, this is a personal attack, I have no problem with calling a fool out for what they are. You are not worth anymore of my time. I won’t be replying to you after this.
Quote Comment
November 25th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Fixx said:
I have heard some pretty ridiculous appeals to authority, but “I’ve taken 3 year of chemical engineering so listen to me about RF radiation and biology” pretty much takes the cake right there.
By the way: I’m not saying I have much in the way of professional or formal training in this area, but then again, I don’t support my contentions by using my own credentials – I prefer to cite verifiable facts.
Quote Comment
November 26th, 2010 at 12:03 am
I only stated my education because it was called into question by DV82XL when he made his own appeal to authority and suggested my “grasp of the concepts was incomplete”. Obviously if my background was in biology and physics it would be more relevant. So, by no means was I attempting to suggest I should be taken seriously simply because of my education or even because of the ton of research I have done on this very subject but simply that I do have a grasp of the concepts of radiation exposure.
Before I go I would like to leave you with a couple of thoughts on rebuttals that I did not respond to:
“For industrial and work-related exposure, the limit is 10% of the level. For consumer and general public exposure it’s 2% – five times lower.”
So why is it OK for someone who is using something chronically to be exposed to a higher dose? The point I was making was that government regulators make provisions in the laws that contradict safety in the interest of business concerns all the time. The Canadian electrical code book is full of exceptions to rules designed to save contractors money. In the latest revision the most common gauge of conductor used in house construction is suddenly able to safely carry more current than in previous editions, other gauge ampacities remained the same. Another example, formaldehyde was discovered to be carcinogenic but not banned because it was in 80% of the U.S. GDP. I would think that should make it more important to ban it.
“They may have released false information, but show me where there are peer reviewed, thorough studies published with solid data to show tobacco is safe.”
Do you think the general public is discerning enough to check if the information (in this case lies) is peer reviewed and arrived at by proper scientific methods. They may not have convinced any scientists but that likely wasn’t their target audience anyway.
These are from two of the studies referenced by this article:
“Among persons who had used cellular phones for 10 or more years, increased risk was found for glioma (odds ratio = 2.20, 95% CI: 0.94, 5.11)”
“Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as reported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1–3.1)”
I look forward to reading your responses but will not respond to them. This is not meant as an insult. I merely prefer to leave you in your certitude and continue on my path of uncertainty.
Quote Comment
November 26th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
I note that I made the first comment so perhaps I can make the last. Firstly, being British, I have no interest in your educational qualifications, you will be judged purely on the quality of your contribution.
What is the reason for setting a higher exposure limited for industrial and work-related exposure? This is quite a normal situation; there is a presumption that a work environment will be better controlled and safety rules enforced, and also that the worker will have to be in reasonably good health just to be able to do the job. Outside of the workplace, a person may be subject to multiple sources of radiation in an uncontrolled manner or may be seriously ill, perhaps unable to cope with increased demand on his body cooling.
Jumping to your two quotes: “Among persons who had used cellular phones for 10 or more years, increased risk was found for glioma (odds ratio = 2.20, 95% CI: 0.94, 5.11)” This is taken from the Abstract of a German Interphone study: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/163/6/512.full
Odds Ratio = 2.20, 95% CI: 0.94, 5.11 – What do these figures mean? Firstly, someone has scoured the report to find the largest OR figure – most figures are around or less than zero. This particular figure is based on 12 cases, 11 male and 1 female. It shows that there is a 95% probability that the correct figure lies between 0.95 and 5.11 – hardly reliable!
The full Interphone report: http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/3/675.full states, “No elevated OR was observed ≥10 years after first phone use (glioma: OR 0.98; 95% CI 0.76–1.26…”
The next quote: “Risk of a tumour on the same side of the head as reported phone use was raised for use for 10 years or longer (OR=1.8, 95% CI: 1.1–3.1)” This comes from an acoustic neuroma report (also part of the Interphone study): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361634/
The report goes on to say, “Overall, given the multiple, potentially contrary sources of bias no firm conclusions can be drawn from the analyses on side of use.”
The Interphone study, as a whole, is a large one but, because it relies heavily on interviews with patients and others, it is plagued with missing, or inaccurate, information. The results are therefore sometimes inconsistent – they show, for example, an increased number of tumours on the side of the head where the phone is supposedly held, while showing an overall decrease in the total number of tumours as a result of using a mobile phone.
Clearly, these reports need to be read with care (cherry-picking results to suit a preconceived viewpoint is not valid). The problem is that they are trying to find something that probably does not exist – the result is that what we see are statistical fluctuations and the effects of all sorts of bias in the sampling.
Quote Comment