Cell phone use “possibly carcinogenic” says the WHO

June 1, 2011 Anna Deschamps

Previous studies showed no link between cell phones and cancer, although a large international study conducted in 2010 showed a hint of a possible connection between heavy cellphone use and a rare form of brain tumor. The study was controversial because it began with people who already had cancer, and asked them to recall how often they used their cellphones more than a decade ago.

Cell Phone Radiation "possibly carcinogenic"

A branch of the World Health Organization announced yesterday that cellphones are “possible carcinogens.” The WHO’s panel of experts with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), had convened 31 international experts in Lyon, France, over the past week to analyse existing data on cellphone safety, without actually conducting any new research.

The WHO had previously said there was no established evidence for a link between cell phone use and cancer. Many previous studies have not established any clear cancer link, but a U.S. study in February did find that mobile phone use can change brain cell activity.

The IARC have now classified cell phones as a category 2B threat, alongside the pesticide DDT, gasoline engine exhaust, styrofoam cups and coffee.

Need to keep a close watch

“There could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk” said the chairman of the IARC working group, Jonathan Samet, of the University of Southern California.

The working group’s statement noted a possible connection between cellphones and two types of brain tumors — gliomas and acoustic neuromas – whilst there is not enough evidence to link cellphones to other cancers. But even the link highlighted in the statement admits that the evidence for the classification is “limited.”

The controversy will, however, simply not go away. The thought that using our biggest modern convenience constitutes a health danger to us, is at best an urban myth, and at worst an invisible act of self-destruction.

The reality is that probably far more people are killed in car accidents than from brain tumors caused by cellphones, according to Otis Brawley, chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society.

Cellphones emit radio waves which are a form of non-ionizing, low-frequency radiation. But according to Brawley this kind of radiation is too weak to damage DNA unlike the radiation given off by the sun, tanning beds or CT machines.

There are an estimated 5 billion cellphones in use worldwide today. They have become part of our daily lives, so it is doubtful whether any “health warnings” will any any effect on people using them.

Basic precautions advised

Nevertheless, despite the acknowledgment that more detailed research is required before a more definitive answer can be given, the scientists did urge a review on the guidelines on cellphones. They suggested it would be prudent to take some basic precautionary steps.

“Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting,” said IARC director Christopher Wild.

The received wisdom for concerned consumers is:

-         use a wired earpiece, and keep the phone well away from your head;

-         don’t talk on the move when your phone may emit more radiation as it is working harder to connect to a continually changing series of mobile mast towers;

-         text rather than talk for quick messages

-         use Bluetooth when convenient as the radiation is likely to be lower, but don’t wear it all the time.

Brain cancer is comparatively rare (only 6 people out of 100,000 are affected according to doctors) but maybe we should consider using our cellphones more discerningly.

, , , Health, Science & Technology

Trackbacks For This Post

  1. Danish study concludes that mobile phone do not cause cancer, but many remain sceptical | TheRandomFact.com - 6 months ago

    [...] World Health Organisation recently categorised mobile phones as “possible carcinogens” though the actual classification is fairly weak – it is a category 2B threat, alongside the [...]