First up - the alarming study by the US government which links cellphones to cancerous brain tumours, is plagued with red flags.
Early this week, partial findings of the US government funded, ‘mobile phones and cancer study’ on laboratory rats exposed to different levels of cellphone radiation was released. But despite the countless blaring headlines you’ve seen, there’s still not enough solid information for you to hang up your phone just yet.
What the Study Claims
In the two-years long $25 million study funded by the US National Toxicology Program, batches of 90 rats were exposed to varying levels of mobile phone radiation (from both GSM and CDMA devices) for approximately 9 hours-a-day.
The initial findings showed a mechanism which could be responsible for a slight increase in the rates of rare brain and heart tumours in male rats. There was no additional cancer risk to female rats. The rats in the control group, that is those who were not exposed to radiation did not develop any tumours.
Now these are preliminary findings, the final, more conclusive results will come out only by 2017, which will be done on 2,500 lab rats.
Problems With The Findings
Turns out there are plenty and the results aren’t as explosive as they are being described. Here’s why:
1. The findings are partial. Every study has to be peer reviewed for it to be termed credible - i.e. it has to be evaluated by independent scientists in the light of other study material available. In this case, the researchers refused to reveal the fine print on the data and therefore it hasn’t been accepted by the medical community.
2. In the study, rats were exposed to 9 hours of ‘total body’ radiation. Now that’s not the case when we talk on phones, only a small area around our ears is exposed to radiation.
3. Rats were exposed to 9 hours of radiation, 7 days a week. In humans, that’s a lot of talktime!
4. Unlike humans, rats develop cancer as a result of ageing. It is a normal process for them. What is strange is that all the cancer-free rats in the control group died earlier than the ones who got cancer. So does this mean that even though cellphones can give cancer, they help you live longer?
Haha, no way!
Clearly, cancer could’ve been a result of the normal ageing process and had nothing to do with radiation.
The results are not yet interpretable, and there is a need for a fuller disclosure of other findings within the rats and certainly the mice.John Boice, President of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements to Ars Technicia
5. The fact that no rat in the control group got cancer is also bizarre. The average incidence of cancer in the breed of rats used in animal studies, Sprague Dawley, is 30 to 50%. So a batch of 90 rats remaining cancer-free hints that the result could be a random false positive. More data is required to be convinced of the scientific rationale of the research.
6. It’s striking that female rats did not get cancer. Unlike heart diseases, they surely aren’t protected against cancers and there’s no scientific explanation for oddity.
Apply the Findings To Humans Will Be Stretching It
Way back in 2011, the World Health Organisation put mobile phones in the group 2B “probable carcinogen” list - meaning they can probably cause cancer in animals but there is no sufficient evidence to link it to humans. They are in the same category as pickled vegetables, talcum powder and coffee.
While the study might have its flaws, it does warrant a lot more in-depth research.
IIT Bombay Professor Girish Kumar, who has done the maximum research on cellphone and mobile tower radiation in India, urges the World Health Organisation to take immediate steps:
The study has established causation. Skeptics will always find a reason to not believe in the ill-effects of radiation, but the World Health Organisation should quickly move mobile phones from group 2B carcinogens to group 2A or even 1.Professor Girish Kumar, Professor Electric Engineering, IIT Bombay
Group 1 is the highest level of carcinogens, includes, smoking, alcohol, asbestos and so on. Group 2A carries the ‘possible carcinogen’ risk.
In effect, ending up in group 2 (A or B), implies the World Health Organisation is handing over a ‘take care’ label. It’s their way of letting you know that under some circumstances after enough use, you can end up with cancer.
The label is only half the story. It tells you what could happen but doesn’t tell you how likely it is to happen - almost saying, a boulder could kill you but not mentioning that it has to be dropped right on your head for you to die.
Nonetheless a WHO carcinogen label shouldn’t be taken lightly. If you are nervous about the cancer link, cut down on exposure levels (reduce cellphone time) replace it with something safer (don’t carry them in pockets and use earphones) or eliminate it altogether.
Until better evidence comes out, the ball’s in your court.
Also Read: Feeling Wonky? You Might Be Coming Down With Smartphone Sickness
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)