Cell phones cause cancer?

Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk article tells that the agency now lists mobile phone use in the same “carcinogenic hazard” category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Wireless industry responded to Tuesday’s announcement saying it “does not mean cell phones cause cancer.”

Is RF a danger to health? No one is disputing the fact the EMF and RF waves can be dangerous when they are strong enough. For example operators of powerful transmitters are RF safety. RF Safety and Amateur Radio tells some details on those issues.

Weak RF signals are not considered dangerous to humans. The level at which RF signals become harmful to humans is a hot topic of debate, and I think will stay such for a long time. Let’s stay tuned. There has been years and years of discussion on this with sometimes shocking news on dangers and then more research getting different results.



  1. Tomi says:

    Comment from http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/06/01/1219248/World-Health-Organization-Says-Mobile-Phones-May-Cause-Cancer?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot%2Fto+%28%28Title%29Slashdot+%28rdf%29%29

    Calm Down, It’s Only Group 2B (Score:5, Informative)

    I heard this on NPR and they did a better job of putting this new classification into context (and probably detoothing the newsworthiness). It’s classified by the IARC as Group 2B, not even Group 2A. The serious list is Group 1 [wikipedia.org] which indicates they are carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B [wikipedia.org] simply means “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

    I would like to point out that also in Group 2B are Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency), pickled vegetables, coffee, nickel and the occupation of carpentry and joinery. And you know what else? Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.

    So they’ve put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn’t everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?

  2. Tomi Engdahl says:

    News at
    http://www.tietoviikko.fi/kaikki_uutiset/kannykat+eivat+lisaa+syopaa/a709839?s=r&wtm=tietoviikko/-24102011& says:

    Cell phones does not cause cancer according to Danish Cancer Society research published on British Medical Journal. 350 000 normal cellular phone users were analyzed for this research.

  3. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Conflicting results on cell phone radiation

    Aalto University, today inspected the DI Reeta Nylund radiation effects to cope with the dissertation. According to the GSM 900 MHz referral identified a number of protein-level changes.

    Higher than the 1800 MHz GSM exposure, the cells did not reveal any changes or modifications were considerably lower than 900 MHz.

    Further studies should be according to Nylund’s find out why, and whether responses cause relevant biological or health effects.

    Proteomics analysis of
    human endothelial cells
    after short-term exposure
    to mobile phone radiation

  4. Tomi Engdahl says:

    ‘Mobiles bake men’s balls’ bog ad is cobblers – new ruling
    Watchdog tuts at anti-phone posters

    The anti-phone brigade has been ticked off by the Advertising Standards Authority for running posters declaring that a phone in blokes’ jeans could ruin their genes.

    The mobe-bashing body just has to rethink the posters.

    The trust did try to fight back, deluging the ASA with inconclusive studies and quoting our old friends the trick-cyclist-backing Council Of Europe, the box-of-frogs outfit that wants the return of the Heliograph and the creation of special radio-free reservations for the paranoid-delusional.

    Euro report slates wireless comms, recommends smoke and mirrors

    The potential dangers of electromagnetic fields and their effect on the environment

  5. can wireless internet cause cancer says:

    Hi there colleagues, how is the whole thing, and what you desire to
    say concerning this paragraph, in my view itss actualpy awesome
    designed for me.

  6. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Massachusetts boarding school sued over Wi-Fi sickness

    The parents of an anonymous student at the Fay School in Southborough, Mass., allege that the Wi-Fi at the institution is making their child sick, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court earlier this month.

    The child, identified only as “G” in court documents, is said to suffer from electromagnetic hypersensitivity syndrome. The radio waves emitted by the school’s Wi-Fi routers cause G serious discomfort and physical harm, according to the suit, which was first reported by Courthouse News Service last week.

    The lawsuit alleges that Fay’s installation, in spring 2013, of new Wi-Fi routers that operate at 5GHz, instead of the older equipment’s 2.5GHz, caused G to suffer a host of serious symptoms, ranging from nausea and rashes to headaches and even chest pain.

    G’s syndrome, often referred to as EHS, is a controversial one in the scientific world – studies have consistently showed that sufferers don’t directly react to the presence of electromagnetic fields, but their symptoms persist. While G was diagnosed with EHS by a doctor – a fact that underpins much of the case – the syndrome isn’t generally recognized among the broader medical community.

    The physician who diagnosed G, Dr. Jeanne Hubbuch, said in a letter to the school last year that EHS was the only possibility that explains the symptoms.

    “It is known that exposure to Wi-Fi can have cellular effects,” she wrote. “The complete extent of these effects on people is still unknown. But it is clear that children and pregnant women are at the highest risk.”

  7. Tomi Engdahl says:

    ‘Safe’ screens touted for those who just can’t look away

    As it gets harder to tear our eyes away from smartphones, televisions, tablets or computers, concerns are growing over a blue light emitted by their screens, blamed for harming the retina and causing interrupted sleep.

    Electronics giants are turning crisis into an opportunity—quickly declaring that their latest products feature “safe” screens.
    At the IFA mega consumer electronics show in Berlin, Dutch company Philips is showcasing a new technology for its computer screens called “SoftBlue,” which it claims is gentler on the retina.
    “We are shifting the harmful blue light frequencies, which are below 450 nanometers, to above 460 nanometers,” said Philips’ marketing director Stefan Sommer.
    Other brands like Asus and BenQ, along with American firm ViewSonic, have also seized on “safe” screens as a new selling point.
    It is all scare-mongering or scientific fact? Serge Picaud, a researcher at the Institute of Sight in Paris, has a more measured take on it.
    “We should not be so afraid that we bin all our screens,” he said.
    Picaud carried out a study in 2013 in which he exposed sample retina cells from a pig—similar to those found in humans—to different wavelengths of light, and showed that those between 415 and 455 nanometres killed the cells.

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-09-safe-screens-touted.html#jCp

  8. Tomi Engdahl says:

    I don’t think that you will really need this kind of thing, but if it makes you to fell safer then it might be beneficial by making you to worry less (which is healthy):

    From http://hackaday.com/2015/12/13/hackaday-links-december-13-2015/
    So you’ve been rocking a tin foil hat for years now, and people have finally gotten used to your attire and claims that fluoridated water is a government mind control experiment. This holiday, how about something a little more stylish? Yes, it’s a Kickstarter for the World’s First Signal Proof Headwear. This fashionable beanie or cap protects you from harmful electromagnetic rays.

    Stylish & Comfortable Signal Proof Hats That Incredibly Fit And Reflect Electromagnetic Waves.

  9. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Mobile device proximity sensor manages RF exposure while maintaining network connectivity

    The FCC last set U.S. mobile phone RF exposure limits in 1996, recommending a maximum of 1.6 watts per kilogram specific absorption rate (SAR).

    In a 2014 survey of consumers, research firm Nielsen discovered that American consumers spent 34 hours on average per month using the mobile apps on their phones – which is more time than they spent online via PC(1).

    This increased RF power and increased exposure has caused the industry to anticipate ways to better manage SAR reduction.

    SAR is the measure of the amount of RF power that is radiated into the human body when in a close proximity to a mobile device. It is defined as the power absorbed per mass of tissue and is measured in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg).

    In the U.S., the FCC sets SAR standards and these limits are followed in many other countries around the world. Standards for European countries are determined by CENELEC, and are currently set at 2W/kg averaged over the 10 g of tissue absorbing the most signal.

    SAR and RF radiation have made headlines (2) recently with several high profile brain cancer deaths, even though there is not a scientific link between the two. Also, the city of Berkeley, Calif., recently passed a “right to know” law (3) that all cell phones sold in the city must be labeled with the SAR level and a warning. These headlines have raised some customer concern, which has led to mobile device manufacturers looking at new ways to proactivity manage their SAR levels.

  10. battery for invisible fence dog collar says:

    Hi I am so grateful I found your site, I really found
    you by mistake, while I was searching on Aol for something else, Anyways I am here now and would just like
    to say thanks a lot for a fantastic post and a all round exciting blog (I also love
    the theme/design), I don?t have time to look over it all
    at the minute but I have book-marked it and also included your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back
    to read more, Please do keep up the superb work.

  11. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Fridge killed my baby? Mag-field radiation from household stuff ‘boosts miscarriage risk’
    Living off grid, in the woods, away from all tech not such a loony idea after all

    Analysis A study of 913 pregnant women in the San Francisco Bay Area, California, found those exposed to high levels of magnetic field (MF) non-ionizing radiation had a 2.72x higher risk of miscarriage than those exposed to low MF levels.

    The Kaiser Permanente study, “Exposure to Magnetic Field Non-Ionizing Radiation and the Risk of Miscarriage: A Prospective Cohort Study,” was published this month in the journal Scientific Reports.

    The authors, Kaiser researchers De-Kun Li, Hong Chen, Jeannette R. Ferber, Roxana Odouli, and Charles Quesenberry, say their findings add to the evidence that “MF non-ionizing radiation could have adverse biological impacts on human health.”

    “In this study, we found an almost three-fold increased risk of miscarriage if a pregnant woman was exposed to higher MF levels compared to women with lower MF exposure,” the study says. “The association was independent of any specific MF exposure sources or locations, thus removing the concern that other factors connected to the sources of the exposure might account for the observed associations.”

    Study participants were classified in four MF exposure groups – <2.5mG; 2.5–3.6mG; 3.7–6.2mG; and ≥6.3mG – based on 24 hours of measurements with an EMDEX Lite meter as a representation of daily exposure. The researchers did not find the miscarriage risk increased with doses above 2.5mG, leading them to theorize that 2.5mG represents a threshold level for health effects.

    "The controversy over health effects from electromagnetic fields is, to a large extent, a product of earlier studies that did not find many associations between EMF and health risk,"

    As Li observed, there is no scientific consensus that MF exposure harms human health. According to the National Cancer Institute, "[A]lthough many studies have examined the potential health effects of non-ionizing radiation from radar, microwave ovens, cell phones, and other sources, there is currently no consistent evidence that non-ionizing radiation increases cancer risk."

    Cell Phones and Cancer Risk

  12. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Electromagnetic Radiation Is Decreasing in New Generations of Smartphones

    For years, cell phones have been accused of causing cancer in their users. While there’s no evidence that phone-produced RF radiation is carcinogenic, new phones are emitting less of it.

    Specific absorption rate (SAR) is a measurement of the amount of radiation absorbed by humans while using a cell phone. Research is currently being done on whether larger SAR measurements correspond to adverse health effects, including higher risks of cancer in humans.

  13. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Cellphone radiation poses no real harm to humans, new research says

    Unless you’re a male rat bathing in cellphone radiation, experts say you should be fine

  14. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Don’t Hold That Cell Phone Quite So Close!

    Carcinogenic studies on cell-phone RF radiation in mice and rats, specifically GSM- and CDMA-modulated RF radiation, revealed development of one form of cancer.

    Many people rely on their portable cellular telephones; some even spend a better part of each day with the electronic device close to either ear. But they may want to reconsider, according to recent research revealed by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ (NIEHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP), a part of the U.S. National Institute of Health. The NIEHS reviewed the NTP’s draft reports on its carcinogenesis studies of cellular-telephone RF radiation in mice and rats during a three-day March 26-28, 2018 meeting in Research Triangle Park, N.C.

    Part of the study involved lifelong exposure of rats (lifelong being two years in their cases) to 900- and 1900-MHz RF radiation with code-division-multiple-access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) cell-phone modulation formats.

    During the third day of the scientific/medical meeting (March 28), the researchers revealed that both GSM- and CDMA-modulated RF radiation led to development of malignant schwannoma (cancer) in the hearts of male rats. They also pointed out that the same risk for malignant schwannoma existed for female rats exposed to the same conditions. Those conditions included exposure in large reverberation chambers, using 10-minute-on and 10-minute-off cycling for 19 hr/day during the two-year research period.

    Different specific absorption rates (SARs) were used on the subjects, never raising the body temperatures of the exposed animals by more than 1°C. To achieve realistic exposure levels, the reported SARs in the brains and the hearts of the rats were only 1.05 and 2.27 times, respectively, the whole-body average SARs of the test subjects.

    The NTP cell-phone RF study is the largest study of its kind.

  15. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Feat-mongering on 5G. Those RF weapons used very much more power than what 5G uses:

    5G Network Uses Same EMF Waves As Pentagon Crowd Control System

    there is a raging battle to stop the taxpayer funded implementation of 5G.

    The new cell network uses high-band radio frequency millimeter waves to deliver high bandwidth data to any device within line of sight.

    However, 5G applications will require unlocking of new spectrum bands in higher frequency ranges above 6 GHz to 100 GHz and beyond, utilizing submillimeter and millimeter waves – to allow ultra-high rates of data to be transmitted in the same amount of time as compared with previous deployments of microwave radiation.

    The U.S. military developed a non-lethal crowd control weapon system called the Active Denial System (ADS). It uses radio frequency millimeter waves in the 95GHz range to penetrate the top 1/64 of an inch layer of skin on the targeted individual, instantly producing an intolerable heating sensation that causes them to flee.

  16. Tomi Engdahl says:

    Cross talk: Federal agencies clash on cellphone cancer risk

    Two U.S. government agencies are giving conflicting interpretations of a safety study on cellphone radiation: One says it causes cancer in rats. The other says there’s no reason for people to worry.

    No new research was issued Thursday. Instead, the National Toxicology Program dialed up its concerns about a link to heart and brain cancer from a study of male rats that was made public last winter.

    The Food and Drug Administration, which oversees cellphone safety, disagreed with the upgraded warning. And “these findings should not be applied to human cellphone usage,” said Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, FDA’s chief of radiological health.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *