WHO Drops the Ball on Cell Phones and Cancer
May 31st, 2011
|
Cell Phones don’t cause cancer. RF radiation does not cause cancer. Those statements I am willing to stand behind. If you don’t believe me, please use the search function on this site. I can assure you I have plenty of posts with citations of both the theoretical reasons why non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer and the studies that have shown no link.
There’s a lot of pressure to say that they do, however. Claiming cell phones cause cancer sells books and magazines. Some dishonest people have made a whole career out of telling these lies. They become media darlings because everyone loves to hate the “big companies” and to talk about how some poor little guy is being kept down by those evil powers that be. Groups make a lot of money too. Especially when the emotion-charged issue of children is dragged into the mix, dishonest charities can grab headlines and donations. Groups that contribute nothing useful to the world are treated as charities while paying their top executives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year or more.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not afraid to name names when it comes to these dishonest people and groups: Lennart Hardell, George Carlo, Devra Davis, The Environmental Health Trust, Bioinitiative, EMF-Health, Microwave News. (there, so sue me. I’d love to see you in court about this)
Thankfully the WHO has been one organization that has been steadfast about the fact that there is no evidence to indicate a relationship between RF radiation and cancer. There are lots of claims, a few very poorly controlled experiments but no evidence, and this is despite some enormous studies and decades of trying.
Unfortunately, however, the WHO has recently made some more ambiguous statements on the issue. Bowing to pressure from those with a financial stake and those stupid enough to believe them, the WHO has now stated that mobile phone radiation is “possibly carcinogenic” – in other words, there’s no absolutely certain empirical evidence that shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that there’s no remote possibility that maybe somehow by some unknown mechanism, radio waves might have once in the history of the universe caused a cell to become cancerous. (They also claim to base this in part on largely discredited studies linking glioma, a certain form of brain cancer to mobile phones.)
Still, this is a bad idea. It’s a horrible message to send out. The problem is not that it’s entirely scientifically invalid to say that something is very remotely possible, but how politicians, the media and society take such statements. It sometimes seems that research scientists don’t fully understand just how badly a statement can and will be butchered and taken out of context.
This non-story has already spawned over one thousand media reports. Here are a few to provide a taste of just how this plays out:
Los Angeles Times: Experts say cellphones are possibly carcinogenic
Financial Times: WHO signals mobile phone cancer fears
Dallas Morning News: World Health Organization says cellphones might cause brain cancer
The Australian: Risk of brain tumour from mobile phone use is similar to pesticide DDT, petrol exhaust and coffee
Bellfast Telegraph: Brain cancer warning over mobiles
Newsday: Panel sees possible cellphone-cancer link
PC Magazine: WHO Finds Tentative Link Between Cell Phones, Cancer
Seattle Post Intelligencer – Experts: Cell phone use raises risk of cancer
Those are, of course, just a few.
A couple comments about this shameful reporting:
What the hell is a “tentative link?” Does that mean that they don’t have a shred of evidence but are pretty sure they will at some point?
Also, in case you did not know: DDT has never been conclusively linked to cancer in humans, though there were some conflicting studies about chronic exposure in prepubescent girls and breast cancer later, the link appears very weak. There’s not even the slightest evidence that DDT is related to brain cancer.
Coffee has never been linked to brain cancer in any way shape or form, though some studies have found a small risk of increased bladder cancer in very heavy coffee drinkers. The evidence of this is considered inconclusive, in part because the increase was very small and not found by all studies of coffee and bladder cancer. There may be other confounding factors at play.
Automobile exhaust may be carcinogenic depending on the circumstances, such as the fuel burned, the exposure levels etc. There’s little evidence that the combustion byproducts of properly and completely burned gasoline are directly carcinogenic. Of course, these would be mostly carbon dioxide and water.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 31st, 2011 at 4:49 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, 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
May 31st, 2011 at 7:58 pm
WHO is a highly politicized organisation which like all of the UN’s apparatus, sees its continued existence as its primary function. As a consequence, again like all UN agencies, it is rife with internal corruption. I suspect that this wishy-washy statement by them was only to prevent any possibly that somebody would start asking questions about other activities if they did not show some concern. In short they are cowards that want to keep the spotlight off themselves a all costs.
Quote Comment
May 31st, 2011 at 11:24 pm
If something is of great utility (usage, etc), it will surely have its own problems as well; cell phones are no exception. Asking a person never to use his cell phone will seem ridiculous in today’s world in spite the common buzz of the various cancers that might arise due to excessive usage of the mobile phones. With the cell phones penetration into every corner in life where this kind of connectivity was not even thought off during the wired days, the mobile phone is a part and parcel of life that is equivalent to your personal vehicle. The cell phones are a handy device in case of emergency that’s inevitable in the present scenario. However, I think, if using a Bluetooth or a earpiece that moves away the user’s head from the antenna can reduce the RF(Radio Frequency) electromagnetic waves, then it’s worth a practice to keep ourselves at bay from the carcinogenic effect.
Quote Comment
May 31st, 2011 at 11:47 pm
Rahul Aggarwal said:
Sorry, I don’t see the logic in that.
And yes, cell phones do have problems: They can lead to accidentally going over your plan minutes and getting huge overage charges. They can be dangerous to use while driving. They can be annoying and downright rude when in social contexts.
Not that having utility necessarily means something has problems, though.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 2:30 am
drbuzz0 said:
Cell phone use while driving is a proven health hazard but people still do it, even when it’s made illegal. But if you tell people that the radiation from their phone can cause cancer, then they get really worried! We live in a very strange world.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 2:40 am
I have solid first-hand evidence that cell-phones indirectly cause blunt-force trauma to the forehead.
When I read this article about yet anogher claim about the possible cancerogenic effects from radiation caused by RF used in cell-phones, I banged my head on my desk crying “Oh no, not another one!”
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 4:51 am
I don’t know how is the market in the US, but given the sheer number of people I hear of buying (sometimes several times a week) a lame wallpaper or a cheap midi ringtome for more than 1 euro, terminal brain cancer sure is a plausible explanation, alongside with mad cow desease, hypnotoad and MTV.
Concerning the “mostly carbon dioxide and water” exhaust of cars, please remember that the key word is “mostly”, because:
1- car fuel contain additives, plus residual traces of unwanted chemicals such as sulphur. It’s however better than it used to be.
2- no real world car has a perfect combustion, you can always find some unburned fuel and tar/soot in the exhaust.
3- modern car engines greatly solve #2 by using large air to fuel ratio and high temperature, but the drawback is that it also turns some air nitrogen into NOx.
Add to that the fact that many countries are experiencing a huge raise of their car ownership and usage without the current western safety and pollution norms. It may not be that carcinogenic, I don’t know, but cars have been proven to be responsible for quite a lot of chronic respiratory disease induced deaths.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 5:04 am
In before Daryl shows up and starts soiling on the rug.
…
I am often in what feels like the position of being the ONLY SANE PERSON in my family.
HAARP controlling the weather, fluoride in the water polluting our precious bodily fluids, vaccinations being poisoned, FEMA planning to ship us off to camps, Nazi flying saucers, chemtrails, you name it someone in my immediate family believes it and will not shut up about it.
Just when I finally got them to stop blaming cellphones (or at least shutting up about it) for giving people brain tumors/killing the honeybees/causing autism the WHO gets a hair up its rear end and has to churn out this glorious pile of F.U.D.
What really kills me is my family will point at this and say “SEE! SEE!?! PROOF! WE TOLD YOU! WHY WOULDN’T YOU LISTEN!?!” while if I was to turn around and point at the WHO being for vaccinations they’d just brush it off as “Well that’s just what they want you to think.”
Sometimes you just can’t win…
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 9:06 am
Well http://cectic.com/189 gives a pretty good idea of what a lot of us go through at times.
On the issue of cars, diesel engined vehicles do tend to be worse when it comes to air pollution.
Rahul Aggarwal said:
But it won’t do a damn thing to reduce the risk of cancer (BTW, Bluetooth uses RF).
Jason said:
What will future generations think of us?
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 9:25 am
Franck said:
Well that is one problem with quantifying the risk of “gasoline exhaust” – there’s no one single formula or standard for what it is. It depends on the engine type, fuel etc. Still, considering some of the things in it, I’d be surprised if it didn’t have some carcinogenic effects at least in certain circumstances where there is a high concentration.
No doubt exhaust in general (small particulates, smog etc) does cause health poblems, even if other than cancer.
I also believe the evidence of a cancer link may be more well established for diesel exahust
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 9:27 am
Jason said:
And there are people who fear working in a nuclear plant, even primarily in non-nuclear areas and with dosimetry because of the perceived cancer risk… yet seem to think nothing of smoking cigarettes. Go figure.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 10:06 am
drbuzz0 said:
Did you ever see the movie Silkwood? It’s a laugh riot. Here are a bunch of weapons-plant workers who are terrified of getting cancer from plutonium, but when they go into their break room, the air is so full of cigarette smoke that there’s a persistent haze in the entire room. Half of them are smoking.
Apparently, the safest place for these workers was next to their glove box handling plutonium. (At least, their radiation exposure is monitored there.) It was the coffee breaks that were most likely to kill them from cancer.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 10:11 am
drbuzz0 said:
For the most part the catalytic converter takes care of most of it (at least if your car is well maintained and reasonably modern).
http://www.fuelsaving.info/unburnt_fuel.htm has some information on unburnt fuel and then there is http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/ for the really technical information.
drbuzz0 said:
If you drink unleaded petrol you’re pretty much guaranteed to increase your cancer risk.
drbuzz0 said:
I’d say pretty well established.
drbuzz0 said:
Maybe the anti-smoking ads should start advertising the fact that cancer sticks are radioactive as well as filled with carcinogenic chemicals.
Probably wouldn’t do all that much more than they’ve already done (I think basically everyone who smokes either accepts that it’s killing them or just don’t care about reality).
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 10:14 am
BMS said:
No, somehow I think I should be glad not to given what it is probably going to be about.
BMS said:
Though the carcinogenic chemicals in cigarette smoke are much more dangerous than the radiation.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 11:22 am
Hi, again, skeptokooks. The verdict is in, depletedcranium is carcinogenic.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 11:30 am
Nick P. said:
So sweet, skeptopoop remembered me.
It’s so funny to see dolts cry out about corruption.
IARC would likely not even have made its mild meek but small positive step (buzz, don’t forget to eat you 2B lead sandwich washed down with a cup o’ 2B ddt) were it not for some diligent outing of industry hack-scientists just before, had not France3 broadcast the best teevee piece yet a couple o’ weeks ago, had the Council of Europe not just endorsed its enviro etc committee’s decent report on the dangers of wireless, including some juicy if laconic words on icnirp et al.
What’s skepto to do, my, my. Maybe buzz will lead you on his picnic to Fukushima.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 11:36 am
Oh crap, here we go again.
Oh well, it was good while it lasted.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 11:36 am
Anon said:
But who needs plutonium, when you are willing to voluntarily inhale Polonium-210?
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 1:07 pm
Don’t forget the scammers selling “radiation shielding” stickers for phones.
Though in their defense, they’re just parasites, rather than causing the scares.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Sigivald said:
Not necessarily, if they advertise the ’shielding’ stickers then they are contributing to causing the scare.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 3:09 pm
I call SEO spam. A hundred words vaguely on the topic of cell phones, without wasting time first reading the entry – and linking to a “mobility company”, even.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 6:35 pm
Yes, it is true that mobile phones can be carcinogenic. However, most people don’t need to worry, because you would have to eat a real lot of them before any noticeable effect. As long as you only eat a few phones
a year you shouldn’t be too worried.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 6:44 pm
Q said:
Ah … that would explain the “candy bar” style of phone.
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2011 at 7:02 pm
The sad thing is the way a lot of old cellphones are dealt with when they are scrap. Having the metals melted out of them over charcoal fires in various parts of the Third World, probably does cause cancer from the pyrolyzed VOCs that the poor sods doing it breath in.
Quote Comment
June 2nd, 2011 at 3:34 am
Rahul Aggarwal said:
And how does Bluetooth work? Magic?
Quote Comment
June 2nd, 2011 at 9:35 pm
Well, since any electromagnetic field lower than ultraviolet cannot cause cancer, then, one does not even have to do this. Since we know a photon of the energy of a cell phone signal is well below the level of ionizing radiation, then we know ionization cannot occur, and if not, chemical changes cannot occur, and if no chemical changes then no cancer. Period. The whole discussion on cell phones and cancer is an entire waste of time – except for those who would profit from any implication of that. A guy named Al Einstein got a Nobel Prize a few years ago on work that proved this. I think that (unfortunately) this implication shows a lack of education or if educated a lack of professional integrity to promulgate such when we know the physics – not correlation (which is not causation), not “tentative” studies, not “caution in case it really might”. Let’s deal with facts not speculation, then we find cell phones like power transmission lines cannot and do not cause cancer.
> However, I think, if using a Bluetooth or a earpiece that moves away the user’s head from the antenna can reduce the RF(Radio Frequency) electromagnetic waves, then it’s worth a practice to keep ourselves at bay from the carcinogenic effect.
Quote Comment
June 2nd, 2011 at 10:32 pm
I think this is kind of issue is nonsense. The WHO is mistaken. Cell phones do not produce enough radioactive energy to do any damage. And as far as I know, no study has ever shown any negative impact from cell phone use. If there were any danger of cancer, we’d have seen a huge spike in such cancers given the increased cell phone usage over the last two decades. There has been none. I can’t explain the WHO announcement, but will wait for more know legible people to comment. Right now, I think its garbage.
Quote Comment
June 3rd, 2011 at 1:54 pm
There seems to be a lot of “maybes” and “perhaps” and “a possiblity”s surrounding this idea of cellphones causing cancers. I don’t know…I’d like to have some more concrete evidence linking cellphones to cancer, but…I also really don’t want to get cancer, lol. I’ll probably just stick to using the headset, instead of holding the thing to my ear, makes me feel better.
-Zach @ the Turbulence Training blog
Quote Comment
June 3rd, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Chimp said:
Heh, no as I’m sure you are well aware a Bluetooth headset works by special low power high frequency radiation.
Quote Comment
June 3rd, 2011 at 3:19 pm
TomT said:
Actually no, Bluetooth uses Ultra High Frequency radiation, in the same frequency range used by microwave ovens too (and not too far off common mobile phone frequencies).
Quote Comment
June 3rd, 2011 at 3:25 pm
I did say High Frequency. It is just that Bluetooth is run at a lower power level, thus the short range of it. Still it is an ionizing radiation source clipped to or inserted into your ear. I always find it amusing that the same people who will tell you with a straight face about the dangers and evils of the cell phone don’t give a second thought to useing a Bluetooth headset.
Quote Comment
June 3rd, 2011 at 4:14 pm
Bluetooth does not emit ionising radiation (or at least I’m pretty sure no one makes Bluetooth headsets emitting UV, X-rays or gamma rays).
Quote Comment
June 4th, 2011 at 12:48 pm
Reliable Marketer and Anon are correct; ionizing radiation only occurs in UV light and photons (or electromagnetic waves waves; either is correct) higher in frequency (shorter in wavelength); photons of visible light and below in the spectrum do not have enough energy to kick the electrons out of their atomic bond. If they don’t have that energy, then, ionization cannot occur, the chemistry cannot change, and thus cancer cannot occur. Here is a good explanation on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation
…and thus cell phones, microwave ovens, radar, radio, TV, and Bluetooths (Blueteeths??) are not ionizing.
If the WHO is concerned about the health dangers of cell phones, maybe they should be focusing on the number of people killed or injured while driving (or even walking!) and causing an accident due to the cell phone talking or texting distraction. That is factual, measurable, and scientific and documented (and with many peer reviews, such as the families of those whom that distracted driver killed).
Quote Comment
June 26th, 2011 at 12:04 am
This is bull****. The WHO is waking up like everyone else. Google this **** and look at EMFWatch and Microwave News.
This site is bull****. This site is corporate FOD, corporate funded. Pure Bush/Cheney/Obama/Enron/GE/Haliburton money for death bull****. This site even promotes depleted uranium.
I hope you corporate shrills all die a horrible death and I’ll piss on your graves. You have no right to go hurting everyone’s health, make them all sick for money. DIE! DIE! DIE!
Radiation KILLS. CHEMICALS KILL! CORPORATE FARMING IS DESTROYING THE EARTH! Phone radiation is destroying fertility, causes cancer, kills bees and soon our dirty gmo food will kill too. I hope you are all proud of the money you make on this ****. It won’t help you when you burn in hell.
Quote Comment
June 26th, 2011 at 7:15 am
I look at comments like the one above and realize that’s EXACTLY how I would write a parody of such tin-foil hat wearing lunacy.
Greatest troll or really that unhinged?
You decide!
Quote Comment
June 26th, 2011 at 7:43 am
Nick P. said:
Poe’s law does apply to more than just creationism.
The amount of times I’ve seen things just like that on here, it’s almost as if one person is just coming back under a different name every so often to spew that crap although I suspect it is just a massive case of groupthink.
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
See Peleg: http://www.scribd.com/doc/66043711/Bioelectromagnetic-phenomena-are-affected-by-aggregates-of-many-radiofrequency-photons
“This paper addresses the argument stating that since the energy of a single RadioFrequency (RF) photon is extremely small it cannot influence matter significantly and therefore RF radiation cannot cause cancer. The argument is shown to be wrong sincemost known phenomena and uses of RF radiation involve many photons acting in unison.For example in a particle accelerator a multitude of RF photons act simultaneously on asingle elementary charged particle. We show that his holds for particle physics, capacitors, fluorescent tubes, radio communications, RADAR and living tissues. These phenomena arebest treated by considering RF radiation as a wave phenomenon.
In this paper we shall show that the above argument is fallacious. While it is true that asingle RF photon will not affect a biological change, it is erroneous to conclude that cells are not affected by multitudes of photons acting in unison. We shall demonstrate that most the known phenomena and uses of RF radiation on the surface of this planet involve joint action of many RF photons producing effects by their aggregated energies, in somecases those act on a single elementary particle. There is no basis to claim biological interactions are different”
1
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
” Conclusions
The energy imparted by radio frequency radiation to objects and to particles is not limitedby the quantum energy of a single RF photon.RF radiation interaction with objects at temperature at Earth surface is better representedby waves then by photons and most of the associated analytical work uses waves ratherthan photons.Most of the theoretical and all the empirical research into effects and uses of RF radiationat Earth surface temperature starting with the early radio communication and includingthe more recent interaction between RF radiation and living tissues is done on effects involving many photons. Thus the idea of confining the research on carcinogenic influenceof RF radiation to the effects of single RF photons would be absurd. Combination of energies of many radio-frequency photons inside the human body is relevant to biologicalprocesses as it is to almost all the other known effects of RF radiation”
Why this is meaningless.
The author establishes a strawman argument claiming that there exists an argument stating that non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cancer because a single photon cannot have enough energy to influence matter significantly. He then knocks this down concluding that any valid research must be done with higher field strengths than that of a single photon.
To start off with, nobody has ever made the initial argument in the literature, as evidenced by the failure of the author of this paper to provide reference to such. Furthermore, all studies examining this issue have used higher flux sources rather than single photon exposures. Finally there has never been an counterargument that field strengths of a sufficient intensity to cause thermal effects in tissue are dangerous.
In short this paper is valueless.
Quote Comment
December 11th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Ruby said:
That’s not quite the same. Obviously RF radiation can interact with matter and will do so in the appropriate circumstances. It can be reflected or channeled by structures. When it encounters most materials it will either pass through or it will excite localized electrical currents. In a material that is not a very good conductor this will only cause heat. In a better conductor the electrical currents will be directly measurable, but at high frequency they will cancel out and only produce heat or would be channeled to the ground or re-radiated. The general characteristics will tend to be random and no single standing wave is setup unless the material is resonant to the waves, in which case it becomes an effective antenna.
The RF current does not have much noticeable effect besides heating. If you touch a powerful RF current it won’t shock you, it will burn you. It needs to be demodulated, the simplest way being by rectifying it in order to get the electrical wave back out.
An RF particle accelerator is a special case where resonant cavities are used to setup powerful electromagnetic oscillations. These can be used to impart energy to ions, increasing their velocity as they are fired through the accelerator in phase with the current.
It’s not a matter of how many photons you have.
Look, I’ll give you this much: Without the benefit of any practical research into the biological effects of RF radiation, it would be plausible to presume that there might be some as yet unknown effect by which it could cause some kind of biological effect that would cause problems. It is an area which was worth looking at.
However, we’re not approaching this blindly. It was studied, repeatedly in fact, over the course of many decades.
High power microwave signals have been commonplace since the introduction of the cavity magnetron in early World War II. It has been the subject of study for ewqually long
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2012 at 11:22 am
Hello,
It seems to me that we all agree that the idea of confining the research on carcinogenic influenceof RF radiation to the effects of single RF photons would be absurd as pointed out and explained in my conference paper you mentioned. I agree that this is very clear from known physics. Regretfully the falacious statement that RF radiation influence on living tissue is limited by the energy of a single photon and so RF cannot harm us except by warming does still appear occasionaly. I referenced such an occurence in my article, namely
Shermer M. : “Can You Hear Me Now? The Truth about Cell Phones and Cancer; Physics shows that cell phones cannot cause cancer”, Scientific American 303, 98 , October 2010.
The purpose of my article was to present the issue in a organized manner.
Best regards,
Michael
Quote Comment
April 16th, 2012 at 11:00 am
sorry, would just like to point out: the screwballs who think mobile phones cause cancer are the same people who think we’re going to drop dead from having a cup of coffee.
…Hello? Nuff said.
Quote Comment
April 16th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Well, IARC treats electromagnetic radiation rather differently from coffee. It recommends immediate reduction of exposure to radio frequency radiation while it does not recommend (to my knowledge) to reduce normal and typical consumption of coffee. See their site http://monographs.iarc.fr/. This scientific body thinks that mobile phone radiation might cause cancer but they do not think we will die from a cup of coffee.
Quote Comment
April 16th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Michael Peleg said:
This is what you get when someone with very limited knowledge and understanding of a topic, misinterprets what is being written. What is actually being said is this:
The Working Group concluded: there is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF, based on positive associations between glioma and acoustic neuroma and exposure to RF-EMF from wireless telephones.
<i.The Working Group reviewed more than 40 studies that assessed the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF in rodents. Exposures included 2450-MHz RF-EMF and various RF-EMF types that simulated emissions from mobile phones. Increased cancer incidences were noted in 2/12 studies with tumour-prone animals, in 1/18 studies with initiation-promotion protocols, and in 4/6 co-carcinogenesis studies after exposure to RF-EMF in combination with a known carcinogen.
The Working Group concluded that there is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of RF-EMF.
The Working Group reviewed many studies with endpoints relevant to mechanisms of carcinogenesis, including genotoxicity, effects on immune function, gene and protein expression, cell signalling, oxidative stress, apoptosis, effects on the blood-brain barrier, etc. There was evidence of an effect of RF-EMF on some of these endpoints, but the results provided only weak mechanistic evidence relevant to RF-EMF-induced cancer in humans.
Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)
As good scientists they cannot then conclude that RF-EMF is absolutely harmless – however, that does not imply that the converse is true. That’s just not how science works, and laymen are applying their own standards to science and concluding that there is a risk, when in fact one has not been clearly identified.
Scientists do not speak like politicians, unlike the latter they mean exactly what they say, there is no hidden agenda in there statements, but nor are they inclined to state absolutes unless these are truly justified.
And BTW IARC says this about coffee:
There is <inadequate evidence in humans that coffee drinking is carcinogenic
There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of coffee.
Coffee is possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B)
Which is exactly the same risk group as RF-EMF
Quote Comment