#image_title
RF exposure to the head from cell phones likely doesn’t increase the risk of brain cancer in adults, according to a research review commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, that research excluded realistic cell phone usage thus making the study irrelevant. The WHO did concede there was less certainty about the impact of RF exposure on children as well as on adults in occupational settings.
TR Daily has covered the story, quoting EHT Founder Dr. Devra Davis and Dr. Joel Moskowitz, a commissioner on the International Commission on the Biological Effects of EMF. The article is provided courtesy of TR Daily.
TR Daily (Sept. 4, 2024)
Study: Cellphone RF Exposure Likely Doesn’t Increase Adult Brain Cancer Risk
RF exposure to the head from cellphones likely doesn’t increase the risk of brain cancer in adults, according to a research review commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO). However, there was less certainty about the impact of RF exposure on children as well as on adults in occupational settings.
The review, which was led by Ken Karipidis of the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), included more than 5,000 studies published between 1994 and 2022. Sixty-three of the studies were included in the final analysis.
“For near field RF-EMF [radio frequency electromagnetic fields exposure] to the head from mobile phone use, there was moderate certainty evidence that it likely does not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, and salivary gland tumours in adults, or of paediatric brain tumours,” according to results of the review published in the journal Environment International.
“For near field RF-EMF exposure to the head from cordless phone use, there was low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma or acoustic neuroma. For whole-body far-field RF-EMF exposure from fixed-site transmitters (broadcasting antennas or base stations), there was moderate certainty evidence that it likely does not increase childhood leukaemia risk and low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of paediatric brain tumours. There were no studies eligible for inclusion investigating RF-EMF
exposure from fixed-site transmitters and critical tumours in adults,” the study said.
“For occupational RF-EMF exposure, there was low certainty evidence that it may not increase the risk of brain cancer/glioma, but there were no included studies of leukemias (the second critical outcome in SR-C),” it added.
“The evidence rating regarding paediatric brain tumours in relation to environmental RF exposure from fixed-site transmitters should be interpreted with caution, due to the small number of studies. Similar interpretative cautions apply to the evidence rating of the relation between glioma/brain cancer and occupational RF exposure, due to differences in exposure sources and metrics across the few included studies.”
In a news release, Mr. Karipidis said that the decision more than a decade ago of WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) to classify RF exposure as a possible carcinogen to humans (TR Daily, May 31, 2011) “was largely based on limited evidence from human observational studies. This systematic review of human observational studies is based on a much larger dataset compared to that examined by the IARC, that also includes more recent and more comprehensive studies, so we can be more confident that exposure to radio
waves from wireless technology is not a human health hazard.”
Earlier this year, an advisory group to IARC once again recommended that the IARC reevaluate the classification of RF emissions (TR Daily, April 15).
Funding for the WHO-commissioned review, which was released yesterday, was provided by WHO, ARPANSA, the New Zealand Ministry of Health, and the Istituto Superiore di Sanità.
But some advocates for stricter limits on wireless emissions expressed skepticism with the results. Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of California at Berkeley, said that he and others reached “very different conclusions” in a 2020 review of 46 case-control studies on cellphone use and tumor risk.
“In sum, the updated comprehensive meta-analysis of case-control studies found significant evidence linking cellular phone use to increased tumor risk, especially among cell phone users with cumulative cell phone use of 1000 or more hours in their lifetime (which corresponds to about 17 min per day over 10 years), and especially among studies that employed high quality methods. Further quality prospective studies providing a higher level of evidence than case-control studies are warranted to confirm our findings,” the study concluded.
“Although no scientific literature review is perfect, I believe that our 2020 review of cellphone use and tumor risk is less biased and will withstand the test of time better than the new review commissioned by the WHO,” said Mr. Moskowitz, who is the creator of the saferemr.com website.
He said he was studying the WHO-commissioned review “for the cumulative call time results which suggest there was increased brain tumor risk observed with a greater number of hours of lifetime cellphone use.
However, by using data from many studies with limited cellphone use and assuming a dose-response model Karipidis et al. obtained wide confidence intervals because few studies have had many heavy cellphone users.”
Devra Davis, founder and president emerita of the Environmental Health Trust, said, “The pharmaceutical industry rests on animal studies to predict and prevent effects in humans. Yet this review by the WHO rests solely on a cherry-picked selection of human studies. They ignore the growing number of experimental studies in animal and human cell cultures, and in whole animals using state of the art methods such as the National Toxicology Program, which found ‘clear evidence’ of cancer in animals when tested and exposed to levels of cell
phone radiation that people can encounter today.”
In addition to the IARC classification and various studies, advocates for tighter RF emissions standards often cite the National Toxicology Program, which in 2018 accepted the recommendations of an expert peer-review panel and upgraded the confidence levels of carcinogenic activity in rats from exposure to 2G and 3G radiofrequency
radiation (TR Daily, Nov. 1, 2018).
But the NTP, an interagency program housed at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, cautioned that the study results couldn’t be extrapolated to predict the impacts of human cellphone use.
Ms. Davis also said that the “WHO has been captured by the ICNIRP [International Commission on Nonionizing Radiation Protection] and is ignoring the important work of groups” including the International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields (ICBE-EMF).
A number of RF experts have complained that the ICNIRP and FCC have ignored or rejected evidence that their RF exposure standards are inadequate to protect people (TR Daily, June 14, 2023). They said the Commission and ICNIRP should adopt stricter standards.
Dozens of scientists and groups have urged the FCC to seek a refreshed record since its 2019 decision to terminate a notice of inquiry on whether to update its RF rules (TR Daily, Dec. 4, 2019).
In a 2-1 ruling in 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ordered the Commission “to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer” (TR Daily, Aug. 13, 2021).
“Based on the evaluation of the currently available information, the FDA believes that the weight of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phone use with any health problems at or below the radio frequency exposure limits set by the FCC,” a Food and Drug Administration spokesperson said today. “The FDA’s physicians, scientists, and engineers regularly analyze scientific studies and publications for evidence of health effects of exposure to radio frequency energy from cell phones. The weight of nearly 30
years of scientific evidence has not linked exposure to radio frequency energy from use of cell phones to health problems, such as cancer.”
The FCC, which has defended its RF decisions, did not respond to a request for comment on the WHO-commissioned review. CTIA also had no comment.
—Paul Kirby, paul.kirby@wolterskluwer.com
TelecomRegulation: InternationalNews WirelessDeployment PublicSafety
© 2024 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors.
All rights reserved.