Re-investigation of whether or not cell phones can cause cancer revealed that cell phones can cause cancer after all. This publication comes from the Journal “The Guardian”. It turned out that for 25 years the cell phone industry managed to suppress scientific evidence of cancer. In many experiments scientists found brain cancer and adrenal gland cancer in rats from exposure to electromagnetic fields. Regulatory authorities based their statements on fake experiments that showed no apparent effect of EMF (electro-magnetic fields) on animals. There were never any human trials. But 25 years ago cell phones received a “clear signal” though in retrospect that was wrong. Now it turns out that this is one of the biggest human mass experiments.
Human cancer statistics
Exposure to radiation from an atom bomb can indeed bring on brain tumors. This Australian study investigated brain cancer rates in the 1980’s and in the early 2000’s. The conclusion was that cell phone exposure was about the same in the 1980’s and the early 2000’s. Brain tumors were also the same. But at the bottom of this review the authors show some interesting statistics about Hiroshima. Brain cancers are shown as bar graphs in people who suffered exposure to the radiation of Hiroshima. The bar graphs compared brain cancer statistics between 31 years after Hiroshima and 41 to 50 years after Hiroshima. There still was a clear increase of brain tumors in the population 41 to 50 years after Hiroshima.
Long lag time
This is because brain cancer has a long lag time between radiation exposure and actual brain cancer occurrence. The prominent Sydney neurosurgeon, Dr. Charlie Teo said that there can be a long lag period of 10 to 20 years for electromagnetic frequencies (EMF) to cause brain cancer. EMF also has the name EMR (electromagnetic radiation). If one takes into account that EMF is much weaker than radiation from an atom bomb, the lag period of causing brain cancer could be much longer than what Dr. Teo assumed.
An international study found that gliomas were 40% more common in high cell phone users than in low cell phone users. For meningiomas the high cell phone users had 15% more meningiomas than low cell phone users. A previous British study assuming a lag period of 10 years found no gliomas in children and young persons as I reported 12 years ago. But this data might change with a lag period of 20 or 30 years or longer.
Political manoeuvres
The cigarette industry did not want to admit that cigarette smoke was causing lung cancer. In a similar vein the cell phone producers attempted to suppress any negative information about their products. They have been suppressing information that found any biological effect of EMF on tissues. And they funded studies that showed no effect by EMF.
The Guardian states: “The key strategic insight animating corporate propaganda campaigns is that a given industry doesn’t have to win the scientific argument about safety to prevail – it only has to keep the argument going. Keeping the argument going amounts to a win for industry, because the apparent lack of certainty helps to reassure customers, fend off government regulations and deter lawsuits that might pinch profits.” By pursuing this strategy over 30 years the industry has been very successful to undermine any scientist who found that cancer of the brain and cancer of the adrenal glands can occur after prolonged exposure to EMF.
What is the truth about EMF?
The National Cancer Institute
The findings of the National Cancer Institute review are that there is no evidence that the exposure rate or intensity of EMF is strong enough to pose any risks to children or adults. It did acknowledge that exposure to living within 1 kilometer of high voltage power lines could cause leukemia in children. But EMF exposure is not comparable to EMF from these high power lines. The problem with the attitude of the National Cancer institute is that they don’t mention how the lag period can delay the occurrence of cancer by several decades. In other words, their observation time was cut short, and they simply concluded prematurely that EMF could not cause cancer.
World Health Organization
The WHO has done a thorough review of the world literature on the topic of EMF and possible effects on humans. It did acknowledge that the top 10% of heavy cell phone users are at a higher risk of gliomas and meningiomas as mentioned above. EMF exposure has to last for at least 10 years for this to occur. But the vast majority of cell phone users show no effect on the brain or elsewhere. The WHO makes the point that brain cancers may be more common, if EMF exposure to a person is 10 years or longer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has classified EMF as “possibly carcinogenic to humans”. It means that more exposure, longer duration of exposure, and closer tissue contact with EMF could cause cancer.
Cancer literature supports that cell phones can cause cancer after all
In a website by Prof. Keith Scott-Mumby several factors come up that support the notion that EMG is capable of causing DNA damage to cells given the right circumstances.
- Children are much more vulnerable in their brains than adults to get brain cancer. As a result, when children play with cell phones and other gadgets that emit EMF they will be more likely to develop brain cancer later in life.
- Acoustic neuromas in the auditory nerve are 5-fold more likely to develop in children than in adults.
- Swedish researcher, Prof. Lennart Hardell presented a talk at a cancer conference, which stated the following: People who started to use cell phones before the age of 20 had a 5-fold risk to get gliomas, which is a brain cancer type.
- Other research showed that exposure of children to EMF from cordless phones in a household caused a 4-fold higher risk of developing gliomas later in life than controls who did not have EMF exposure.
- Keith Scott-Mumby also stated that brain tissue of children absorbed EMF twice as much as adults do, and similarly, bone marrow of children absorbed EMF 10 times as much as adults do.
- An Indian study in 2005 was comparing people who had no EMF exposure with people who used a cell phone for 1 to 15 hours per day. DNA damage was measured from buccal scrapings (the lining inside the cheek). The controls had only 4% of DNA damage. The frequent cell phone users had DNA damage in 39.75% of their buccal scrapings. We know from other literature that the first step to developing cancer is a mutation of the DNA. After a certain lag period cancer can develop in tissue with mutated DNA.
Conclusion
EMF, the low-grade radiation of electronic gadgets like i-phones, cell phones in general and cordless phones, has an effect on our body cells. We are not aware of this effect. But the body knows on a cellular level that part of our DNA has been damaged. Fortunately, we do have protective mechanisms in place that safe us from most of these damages. But children who are not fully developed yet are at a disadvantage. Their bone marrow and brains are much more prone to develop various types of leukemia and brain cancers. This is why it makes sense to limit their exposure to EMF emitting devices.
At this point the government institutions have not developed recommendations what to do about this problem. The industry has no interest in providing guidelines, as they want to sell more gadgets and increase their market share.
Add to this that even the wiring in a house is sending out weak signals of EMF, which is added to all of the other effects of EMF from cell phones, TV and computer use. We need to rethink our exposure to EMF and balance our lifestyle with other activities where we are not subject to this exposure.
We also need to eat an anti-cancer diet, like a Mediterranean diet. This diet has shown to be an anti-inflammatory and antioxidant diet preventing cancer. All of this can balance our exposure to EMF and offer us preventative measures to stay healthy.
Thank you for your impressive article. My colleagues and I have previously reviewed reports claiming no link between exposure to RF and brain cancer. We found that in many cases there were major shortcomings in these papers. Our studies showed that current controversies are possibly due to key parameters such as difference in the magnitude of exposures to RF-EMFs in different studies. Given this consideration, in a similar pattern with ionizing radiation, we proposed a nonlinear J-shaped dose-response relationship for the carcinogenesis of non-ionizing RF-EMF is introduced.
1. Mortazavi SA, Mortazavi G, Mortazavi SM. Comments on “Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and some cancers of unknown etiology: An ecological study”. Sci Total Environ 2017;609:1.
2. Mortazavi SA, Mortazavi G, Mortazavi SM. Use of cell phones and brain tumors: A true association? Neurol Sci 2017;38:2059-60.
3. Mortazavi S, Mortazavi S, Paknahad M. Correspondence” cancers of the brain and CNS: Global patterns and trends in incidence” – Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and cancer. J Biomed Phys Eng. [In press].
4. Mortazavi S. Comments on “analysis of mobile phone use among young patients with brain tumors in Japan”. Bioelectromagnetics 2017;38:653-654.
5. Mortazavi SM, Mortazavi SA, Haghani M. Evaluation of the validity of a nonlinear J-shaped dose-response relationship in cancers induced by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. J Biomed Phys Eng. [In press].
Thank you for your kind comments. You certainly have quite some experience with EMF research!