Behind The World Health Organization’s “Cancerous” Pronouncement On Cell Phones

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Qlink Pendant

Home Radiation Protection

Envi Headsets

Gauss Meter

Geoffrey Kabat, a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, lays out how WHO’s cancer conclusions don’t square with actual science.

We rely on health and regulatory agencies to provide impartial assessments of potential health risks. Unfortunately, these agencies can be subject to the same political and professional pressures at work in society generally.

An example of this is the recent, widely-publicized pronouncement by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (which is part of the World Health Organization) to the effect that radiofrequency radiation (or RF) from cell phones was “possibly carcinogenic.” Coming only a year after publication of the results of a large multi-country study, which showed no convincing evidence of a hazard, IARC’s announcement left the public as well as many scientists nonplussed.

IARC is a prestigious agency that since the early 1970s has been producing respected monographs evaluating the evidence for a wide range of chemical, physical, and hormonal agents in the carcinogenic process. The cell phone report was the result of an intensive, week-long review by a committee of experts.

In spite of the consternation caused by the report in professional circles, there has been little insight into how the IARC could evaluate all of the relevant scientific evidence and come up with an impossibly vague conclusion. Like many of my colleagues, I was dismayed by the IARC announcement, which did not square with my reading of the scientific evidence.

Hints that not everything was harmonious in the IARC process seeped out but have not been pursued. These include the dismissal from the committee of one of the foremost experts on non-ionizing radiation, a Swedish epidemiologist, due to a “conflict of interest” and the resignation from the committee of an epidemiologist specializing in brain tumors at the National Cancer Institute.

In June I contacted both of these colleagues asking if they would agree to answer questions about the committee’s deliberations, but in both cases they politely declined. One colleague, who is knowledgeable about both IARC and the National Cancer Institute group, offered that scientists involved in this contentious issue have a strong incentive to keep a low profile.

Determined to speak to someone who had participated in the committee, I contacted a molecular toxicologist, Dr. Vijayalaxmi, at the University of Texas, who was only too happy to discuss the committee’s proceedings and to answer my questions.
The IARC cell phone “working group” was composed of approximately thirty members. At the start of the week-long meeting in Lyon, France, where IARC is located, committee members were divided into four separate groups that reviewed the evidence in different areas: epidemiology, dosimetry, animal studies, and “other relevant evidence.” Members of each subgroup were kept informed on a daily basis about the deliberations of the other subgroups.

According to Dr. Vijayalaxmi, in all of the evidence reviewed there was one animal study that showed “weak evidence” of carcinogenicity and one study in the “other evidence” category providing what was also judged to be “weak evidence.” The vast majority of the experimental evidence showed nothing. Beyond that, there were the human (epidemiology) studies. These have been reviewed critically by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, which found no convincing evidence of a link between cell phone use and the occurrence of brain tumors.

At the end of the week-long meeting everyone voted, but, interestingly, the vote was only on the epidemiology. In other words, all the other evidence from experimental studies was left out of the final decision on how to classify RF. The choices in the IARC classification scheme are: “sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity”; “probable carcinogen”; “possible carcinogen”; or “insufficient evidence.” A majority of committee members voted to classify RF as “possible carcinogen,” while a small minority voted for “insufficient evidence.”

Since the agency’s classification hinged on the epidemiology alone, it is highly significant that one of the committee members was Dr. Lennart Hardell, another Swedish researcher who has carried out epidemiologic studies of mobile phone use and brain tumors. Hardell has been a vocal promoter of his results as indicating that long-term cell phone use appears to be associated with increased risk of glioma, the most fatal type of brain tumor.
However, Hardell’s work is viewed as seriously flawed by some of the most respected academic epidemiologists working in this area. It appears that he was included as a member of the working group in response to pressure from activists and the media. One well-informed scientist told me that she thought the committee member who resigned did so in disgust at the weight given to the Hardell studies.

According to Dr. Vijayalaxmi, in issuing its report IARC wanted to send a message that we still have limited information about the possible effects of prolonged and heavy use of cell phones, especially among users who start as children and adolescents. She is comfortable with the classification and thinks that it will be an “eye-opener for people who abuse the technology, which is meant for benefit, not for overuse and abuse.”

But if this were the goal, there was no need to carry out another exhaustive evaluation of the evidence. And once having carried out such a review, by any set of criteria for evaluating evidence, the conclusion should have been that – although we have not monitored the effects of cell phone use for long enough – the substantial evidence currently available provides no suggestion that cell phone use contributes to the risk of brain tumors. The ambiguous label “possible carcinogen” is unfortunate because it means one thing to scientists working for IARC and something quite different to the general public when trumpeted in the headlines.

In classifying RF as a “possible carcinogen,” IARC has aligned itself with the “precautionary principle,” which sounds perfectly reasonable, except that it is often used to conjure up the existence of a possible hazard in the face of extensive and solid evidence suggesting the non-existence of a hazard. Of course, we need to spell out the limits of current knowledge, but we also need to rely on scientists and health agencies to use logic, analytic rigor, and clear language to assess what things are worth worrying about.

Geoffrey Kabat, Ph.D., is a cancer epidemiologist at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and the author of “Hyping Health Risks: Environmental Hazards in Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology.”

Erie, Pennsylvania
Moreno Valley, California
Antioch, California
Amarillo, Texas
Kalgoorlie, Victoria
Papua New Guinea, Port Moresby
Moreno Valley, California
Wichita Falls, Texas
Cary, North Carolina
Madagascar, Antananarivo

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products

Scientists Point to Possible Health Effects of Cell Phones

Cell Phone Radiation, Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Lifebluetube Headset

Cell Phone Radiation Protection

Mobile Phone Radiation Protection

Trifield Electromagnetic Field Meter

August 24, 2011 | Zulima Palacio

This past May, in a major policy shift, the World Health Organization said electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are possibly carcinogenic. Although the International Association for the Wireless Telecommunication Industry says there’s no evidence that cell phones have a negative impact on health, many people are wondering exactly how electromagnetic fields, including those generated by cell phones, might harm them.

The World Health Organization says at least five billion people around the world use mobile phones and those who use them most frequently could be at risk for malignant brain tumors.

Many scientists welcomed the WHO statement, but some said it did not go far enough because it didn’t mention impacts on human health from cell towers and other wireless devices.

Camilla Reed is founder and director of, an advocacy group that’s been critical of the mobile phone industry. She explains the basics of electromagnetic fields.

“An electromagnetic field is a wave with a frequency. The frequency may be long or tight. It’s energy; it’s packets of energy that is a natural phenomenon on earth, but it is also modulated by mankind to create telecommunication spectrums that are artificial frequencies that are not found in nature and that our bodies are not adapted to,” Reed said.

Reed says research on the biological impact of electromagnetic fields goes back to the 1950s. Those impacts include not only cancer, but other effects on living cells and their genetic material, their DNA.

Reed is especially concerned about the growing pollution from electromagnetic fields near schools, like these cell phone antennas next to a high school football field in a Washington suburb.

Scientists disagree about the health effects of electromagnetic fields. But they all agree that caution should be used when it comes to children, the most vulnerable group.

Some health experts believe the effects could be wide-ranging. Dr. Ashok Agarwal heads the Center for Reproductive Medicine at Cleveland Clinic. He has done several studies on the impact of cell phone use on male fertility.

“We demonstrated that men who use cell phones for more than four hours per day have a significant reduction in their semen quality in most of the semen parameters such as sperm count, mobility, and morphology,” Agarwal said.

Dr. Agarwal says other scientists have gone farther in finding damage to DNA and other changes attributed to electromagnetic fields.

Neuroscientist Nora Volkov, at the National Institutes of Health, has been using magnetic resonance imaging ((MRIs)) to study human brain responses to electromagnetic fields.

“What our study does show is that the human brain is sensitive to the effects of electromagnetic radiation from cell phone exposure, when the cell phones are placed by the side of the head,” Volkov said.

Volkov’s study did not determine long-term impact. But she compares her initial studies to those done decades ago on the health effects of tobacco. She says scientists had to wait 15 to 30 years before there was conclusive evidence that smoking causes cancer.

On the safety of cell phones, scientists offer these suggestions. “When it comes to children and adolescents, I would give the recommendation to parents to encourage them not to use the cell phone by the side of the head but instead to use the speaker phone mode or with a wire, and certainly would not recommend for them to sleep with their cell phones under their pillows,” Volkov said.

Dr. Ashok Agarwal from Cleveland Clinic.

“The technology is very important for our day-to-day life, but we need to be aware that there may be some possible side effects that can be there with overuse of these technologies,” Agarwal said.

The evidence on the cancer-causing potential of cell phone radiation is not yet conclusive, but the World Health Organization’s cautionary stand is certain to fuel intensified research into electromagnetic fields and their impact on public health.

San Bernardino, California
Wangaratta, Victoria
New Zealand,
Costa Rica, San Jose,
Plano, Texas
Cleveland, Ohio
Kuwait, Kuwait City
Mongolia, Ulan Bator,
Lebanon, Beirut
Dhadna, United Arab Emirates, Dhadna, UAE

Click on any of the pictures below

to learn more

Anti-Radiation Air-tube Headset

EMF Harmonization Products