In part 1, I gave the motivation for this examination and its starting point. I mentioned that Jeromy doesn’t present any argument against his assertions; nor is he required to do so. I’m going to point you to those studies and discuss a tiny portion of them here.
I also gave a bit of background discussing radiation scares from my childhood and placing them into context for the current debate. I discussed a bit about my personal educational biases that you should consider in reading this text.
In part 2, I presented the evidence for harm and noted that the rules of logic place the burden of proof on those claiming harm to show it. If those studies are not strong enough you must not accept the conclusion of harm. However, you have the responsibility to determine if the strength of their conclusions is enough for you to take action.
I will now present the argument against harm. Remember, these studies can never prove that there is no harm from cell phone radiation; that’s against the rules of inference. All they can do is fail to find an effect. This is troubling to some people; but if you think it through carefully you will see that the world has to work this way.
I started my search at the website of the American Cancer Society. They have a list of cancer causing substances and while red meat, salted fish, and ultraviolet radiation are on it; microwaves are not.
I also checked the National Cancer Institute website. They have a very nice description of the causes of cancer and their research into them. They also have an extensive publication list. They even have a fact sheet on cell phone use and cancer.
The list of research finding no effect of cell phone radiation is at least as long as the list finding harm.
The current ‘go to’ study for an association between cell phones and cancer is the INTERPHONE study.
INTERPHONE Study Group (2010) Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. Int J Epidemiol. 2010 Jun;39(3):675-94.
In this study the researchers used a case-control design of 5117 cases in 13 countries. The matching criteria was sex, age, and location. This is a bit better than the Swedish research which didn’t include location as a part of the matching. Interestingly at lest some of the Swedish data was included in this study. This study failed to find any increased risk of cancer associated with cell phone use.
I selected this study as an example of how similar (or even identical) data can return different results. The Swedish study from part 2 was done after this one. Although it doesn’t say, I believe that it included some of the data as this one. They also included more recent Swedish data, but excluded data from the rest of the world. So perhaps the cell phones in Sweden are different from the rest of the world, or maybe Swedes react differently to cell phones; if so the proper inference on the previous study should be limited to Swedes. I have no idea so I’ll leave it to you to decide for yourself.
The following paper summarized a large number of studies, placing more weight on studies done after 2009 when questions on the risk of harm arose.
SCENIHR. (2015) Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks: Potential health effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMF). 9th plenary meeting on 27 January 2015.
The committee found that most epidemiological studies on cell phone EMR exposure do not show an increased risk of brain tumors. Nor do they indicate an increased risk for other cancers of the head and neck regions.
However, some studies have raised questions regarding an increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma in heavy cell phone users. Yet, the results of studies following cell phone users over time do not support an increased risk for glioma while the possibility of an association with acoustic neuroma is possible.
Epidemiological studies do not indicate increased risk for other malignant diseases, including childhood cancer.
The next paper is an example of an experimental study that failed to find a carcinogenic effect in mice. This study was important as it shows very clearly the problems with scientific reproducibility. Given how science is supposed to be the foundation of our knowledge, this problem is arguably the most significant issue of our time.
Oberto G1, Rolfo K, Yu P, Carbonatto M, Peano S, Kuster N, Ebert S, Tofani S. (2007) Carcinogenicity study of 217 Hz pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields in Pim1 transgenic mice. Radiat. Res. 2007 Sep;168(3):316-26.
This study repeated the techniques of a previous study claiming a carcinogenic effect for high frequency radiation in mice. The researchers used 500 mice, randomly assigning them to treatments and controls and followed them over 18 months. The experiment was conducted blind, meaning that the researchers didn’t know which were the treated and untreated animals. Analysis of the data failed to find a carcinogenic effect.
Perhaps the effect is too small for the sample size and the first study got ‘lucky’. Or perhaps there is a connection between some small aspect of the mouse genome and radiation susceptibility that was expressed in the first study and not the second; we will probably never know.
This next study is huge! The paper was from the Million Women Study. They sought to follow a million women aged 50 and older and to test behavior and lifestyle choices against maladies; specifically, breast cancer. It was conducted in the UK and is a prospective study meaning that researchers identify subjects and follow them through time. The women were asked to fill out a questionnaire and were not required to change their lifestyle in any manner.
The following paper reports on the possible cell phone cancer link.
Benson VS1, Pirie K, Schüz J, Reeves GK, Beral V, Green J; Million Women Study Collaborators (2013) Mobile phone use and risk of brain neoplasms and other cancers: prospective study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2013 Jun;42(3):792-802.
The researchers were interested in the relation between cell phone use and the incidence of brain tumors and cancers. They followed 791,710 middle-aged women for seven years.
During the study there were a bit over 51,000 cancer incidents, of which about 1200 were in the central nervous system. The data could identify no increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers in cell phone users. They did identify an increase in acoustic neuroma with cell phone use, so there is some indication of a danger; albeit slight.
I would wish to know what fraction of the women were cell phone users versus non-users. Perhaps if I read the entire study this would have been included, but it’s important information to include on the abstract.
This study is important because of its size. None of the other studies I found had anywhere near as many participants. It does strongly imply that at least for UK women over 50 there is very little, to no, threat to health from cell phone use.
Smart meters
Smart meters are supposed to use the same frequencies and intensities as cell phones. That’s why we can consider them together. Smart meters are regulated by the states. In California some local jurisdictions (counties and cities) are attempting to regulate them, so this might change.
The FCC has guidelines on smart meters. They put the output from a single meter as between 10 and 100 nW/cm2. However, given various assumptions on reflection and absorption (Sage Report), this value can be as high as 8.9 million nW/cm2, quite a difference.
The American Cancer Society says that smart meters are safe, an opinion echoed by the National Cancer Institute.
Conclusions
So: do cell phones cause cancer? I don’t know, and neither does anyone else. However, there is some evidence that long-term cell phone use is harmful, and potentially carcinogenic. In addition, the harmful effects are stronger when applied to children and teens; possibly due to active brain growth. There is better evidence that living or working near cell phone towers can be harmful.
I went into this thinking that I would find sloppy studies with marginal effects, that was not the case. I’ve come away concerned enough that I’ve taken a few steps to protect my family. Having said that, I note we aren’t in the high-risk category.
We live far from the cell tower; meaning that we rarely use the cell phone. We don’t have a smart meter (if necessary I will use this information to protest installation). We use few wireless appliances; my primary computer is completely wired; including keyboard and mouse. I do have a laptop, on which this was written. I’ve taken to operating it in airplane mode; only switching to WIFI when the machine is supported on a table away from my body. We also use cordless phones. After reading these studies I have installed a wired headset on it.
To me the important actions are: if you have a smart meter—shield it, opt out if possible. The current generation is dangerous, with many cases of overloading that ignites fires or causes explosions.
NEVER allow children or teens to talk directly on cell phones, use a wired headset or the speaker option, and keep the phone at least three feet from young, growing bodies.
Reduce your cell phone use to less than 30 minutes in any one day or 2 hours in any one week and always use a wired headset; keep the antenna as far away from your head, breasts, and gonads as possible. Do not carry an active cell phone on your person; and NEVER, EVER, sleep with one on your pillow.
My objections to smart phones are strictly related to the applications, which are noted to cause psychological damage. I also perceive dangers to a focus on being constantly connected, but that’s for a future post.
I suppose that I could have written this on the dangers of water saving dishwashers and clothes driers. These appliances are also conducting an experiment in human tolerance of advanced enzymes; but, to date, there is much less research.
Now my one peeve in all this is with the government websites. There is no reason why they shouldn’t include all of the studies regardless of the results. I should be able to go to any .gov site and find all sides of the research. All of the studies that Jeromy cites should be available and clearly marked on the NCI website. It’s like they only want the public to know about one side—but that can’t be, they have only our best interest in mind; right?
Well now, there just might be another reason for the lack of consistency in these results. Northwestern University is reporting that a group of researchers have created an electronic device that slows the growth of a brain cancer–glioblastoma. If this truly works out, then exposure to some types and doses of EMR may reverse the damage of other types and doses. Isn’t the world so interesting! However, this does provide evidence of a mechanism for bioactive electromagnetic fields; and that would support the contention that they may interact with the brain in harmful ways.