Tuanz boss not worried by cellphone cancer study
A World Health Organisation (WHO) report released today says low-level radio frequency electromagnetic emissions should be reclassified as a possible human carcinogen.
The study, carried out by a WHO agency called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), found that mobile phone use may increase the risk of glioma, a malignant brain cancer.
This led several media organisations to label cellphones as a possible cancer risk (read the Guardian's take here).
Telecommunications Users Association chief executive Paul Brislen begs to differ.
The Tuanz boss has been following the cellphone "radiation" debate for years, both in his current role, and past positions as a comms manager for Vodafone and editor of Computerworld. His general take - essayed on his personal blog here) - is that people are being alarmist or misinterpreting results.
After an initial scan of reports about the study released today, his view remains the same: "Cellphones do not give you cancer. I'm happy to stand by that."
Mr Brislen - a cancer survivor himself - pointed NBR to one paragraph in The Guardian's report that states:
In designating radio-frequency fields as "possibly carcinogenic", the WHO has put them on a par with around 240 other agents for which evidence of harm is uncertain, including low-level magnetic fields, talcum powder and working in a dry cleaners.
The report found no clear mechanism for the waves to cause brain tumours. Radiation from mobile phones is too weak to cause cancer by breaking DNA, leading scientists to suspect other, more indirect routes.
"That puts [cellphone emissions] on a par with talcum powder," Mr Brislen said.
"If that's the level we're talking about then I'm less concerned. Basically it's saying we must keep a watching brief and that's a sensible precaution for just about every product on the market."
The Tuanz boss noted that only a single substance made the WHO's "Group 4" rating - the agency's safest level - which means something is "Probably not carcinogenic to humans" (see table below).
"They're putting mobile phones on the same level as drinking coffee, and I'm happy with that. There are much bigger things to worry about."
THE IARC's risk table
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a subsidiary of the World Health Organisation, has classified mobile phones as a 2B cancer risk.
The IARC Groups are as follows, with some other exposures already classified (see the full list here):
- Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans - 107 agents including asbestos, tobacco smoking, solar radiation
- Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans - 59 agents including anabolic steroids, HPV 68, PCBs
- Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans - 266 agents including lead, gasoline, mobile phone use
- Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans - 508 agents including fluorescent lighting, tea
- Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans - 1 agent: caprolactam (a liquid associated with the manufacture of nylon)
Newer phones have lower emissions
Through the Science Media Centre, National Radiation Laboratory senior advisor Martin Gledhill commented that, "This conclusion is expected because IARC puts greater weight on the human data (epidemiology studies) some of which suggest the possibility of a small increased brain tumour risk for long term cellphone users. Nevertheless, this data is subject to a lot of uncertainty and it is acknowledged that biases in the data could be responsible for the apparent risk.
"It should be noted that the data on which this conclusion is based mostly arises from older technology phones. Newer technologies (3G/XT/CDMA) produce much lower exposures than these phones.
Simple steps to reduce exposure
Mr Gledhill said if If people are concerned there are simple steps people can take to reduce exposures:
- Use the phone in places with a good signal strength, which allows the phone to transmit at reduced power.
- Phones using the newer CDMA or 3G (UMTS) technologies usually provide greater reductions in power.
- Minimise the length of time spent on calls. Use a conventional landline phone (ie, not cordless), or car kit with an external antenna
"Tests of hands-free kits have generally found that they reduce exposures to the head by up to 98%. To reduce exposure to all parts of the body, the phone should be placed away from the body when making a call," Mr Gledhill said.
Txting is another option for those worried about holding a cellphone close to their head.
Bluetooth earpieces are popular with some emission avoiders - but NBR does wonder (if harmful emissions are indeed being produced) if such people are saving their brains but - if their cellphone is one a belt or in a pocket - irradiating their crotch.
Consider technological benefits
Prof Malcolm Sperrin, director of medical physics & clinical engineering at Royal Berkshire Hospital, commented that, "It should also be stated that electromagnetic field exposure is not new - witness the regular usage of radio and other waves for many decades with no convincing health detriment at low powers. The social and technological benefits also need to be emphasised."
Worth keeping an eye on, but could be no risk
Mary McBride, a clinical associate professor at the University of British Columbia thought the 2b classification was appropriate, but underlined it did not necessarily mean mobile phones were a carcinogen:
"Cellphone utilisation is widespread and increasing globally and the risk of brain tumours is not to be ignored. There have been isolated studies that show increased risk of cancer but it is useful to appreciate that the evidence is limited - some aspects of research suggest that lo-frequency radiation would not affect cancer risk at all."
Signup to free NBR email alerts here
Back to home
Back to top
Print
Email
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit
NBR SERVICES
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Sign up for NBR subscriber content or email alerts
Latest
Comments and questions22
for once I agree with Paul Brislen on something.
Good advice and not moved by rumours....
Lol, I can hear the distant and long forgotten lines of the tobacco industry here "no proof", find another product to compare risk levels too etc etc.
One day this will come back to bite him in the a**e.
How so, spinner? This isn't anywhere near the same debate.
There is no evidence that cellphones cause cancer - there is (and always has been) a wealth of information about smoking.
This categorisation is absolutely right - there is a possibility of some relationship between the two, but there is no rational explanation. I'm happy for them to study it further but so far all we've uncovered is a lack of evidence one way or another. Eventually they'll either find something we can discuss or they'll give up looking. So far they've found no link.
Read the National Radiation Lab research, and its advice on such things. Read the Interphone study from the UN and (dare I suggest it) read this very study and you'll see all they're saying is "we don't know so we'll keep looking".
By the by, the fifth category (Group Four) is the "not a carcinogen" category and that's the one with only one or two products listed... just to clarify.
Cheers
Paul Brislen
In response to Spinner. No improper analogy. Independant studies by organisations similar to WHO found clear and direct evidence of harm way back in the 70's from smoking. The producers tried to fudge the results. Here no evidence of direct link. Just apply science and critical thinking on a case by case basis.
This 'opinion' strays well outside the CEO TUANZ mandate. Using a media profile to commentate on a subject that one has no qualifications to express any views on is not helpful to the reading public or the TUANZ membership.
All the tin foil wearing hat freaks will come out of the wood work now! IE Ban the tower website folk, The first to complain when their cell phones don't work!
To be exact WHO/IARC have reclassified "RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS". This covers all Radio Frequency EMF from Cell Phones, Cell Phone Towers, Radio/TV Masts, WiFi, Cordless Phones, Baby monitors etc. The reclassification is based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer, associated with wireless phone use.
You can come up with all sorts of excuses to do nothing but it is time to move the Cell Phone Towers from in front of our homes to a more suitable distance.
Pulsed EMF has been used in hospitals to accelerate the repair of bones for over a decade. Unfortunately when you have the second largest industry in the world dominating the research it is no wonder that many think they can speak for hours on their mobile without any consequence.
[Low-level emissions are produced by devices all around us - but are only supposed to be a concern (assuming there is a risk) if you're within an arm's length. Few people sit that close to their TV or microwave, but some have their cellphone glued to their ear - CK]
For those that want to put cellphone "radiation" in context, I highly recommend this cartoon on XKCD.
http://xkcd.com/radiation/
BLUETOOTH!
IT BURNSSSS oh it burns....
Hi CK,
With regards to low-level emissions. The pulsed emf radiated into my lounge from the Cell Phone Tower opposite my home is equivalent to my Microwave oven on full power at half a meter distance. I have measured much higher levels for homes that are elevated up into the emf plume of the Cell Phone Tower. A lot of families and children are being uneccessarily exposed because of the lack of common sense and mis-leading industry arguments.
People can choose to use hands free, txt, move their WIFI/Cordless devices away from where they reside in their homes. However you have very little choice once a Cell Phone Tower is built opposite your home and unfortunately most people will not even be aware that they are being exposed.
[Leaving aside the veracity of emissions claims for a moment, this touches on a key problem - everyone wants better cellphone reception, but no-one wants a cellphone tower near their home or workplace, either for aesthetic or "health reasons".
I wouldn't want a celltower on my doorstep, either, but as the Mr Gledhill notes in the story above, one irony is that people instinctively want to be far from a celltower - but if you're closer, your cellphone receives a stronger signal so can transmit at reduced power - CK]
Dear Toa, The emissions from a celltower should not in any way outstrip the output from your microwave oven at a distance of 50cm.
Which company owns the tower?
How did you measure the output?
You would be advised to contact Martin Gledhill at the National Radiation Lab. Martin has a device that measures such things and he will be able to come round and give you a reliable measurement for what's going on in your house. He won't necessarily be able to pinpoint the source but if it is the tower outside then he and you will be able to take the information to the telco and figure out why that particular tower is putting out thousands of times the legal limit, something which would need to be rectified rather quickly.
Most towers in New Zealand operate at a fraction of the allowable output - Vodafone regularly engages the NRL to assess towers and the radiation levels and has yet to come across a tower that operates at any more than about 4% of the allowable limit.
We should use the same tactics as the ASH nazis, and place a warning on all cellphones stating that the use of cellphones causes brain cancer, with an adjoining colour photo showing an actual brain tumour. That would be fair and reasonable, wouldn't it?
Thanks CK,
Cell Phone Towers operate efficeintly at 50m, 500m or 5000m all that is needed is a clear line of sight. If you place them in between homes (not in parks) or at the base of hills (not on top of the hills) then the coverage will be poor and your Cell Phone will operate at maximum power.
In 2009 we tried to get a Cell Phone Tower that was about to be built moved 400 meters to an elevated lamp post opposite a park. The new placement would have been much higher, 300-400 meters away from surrounding homes, provided better coverage and reduced emf exposure to residents. This was rejected by the company. The only reason we could surmise was because they did not want to pay for the extra 100m of power/fibre cabling.
The home owner ended up a huge green buzzing cabinet against their fence and a Cell Phone Tower over their two story home. The small cost that the company saved was at the expense of the home owner in a reduced home value and exposure to pulsed emf.
Mac - you are a tosser and you've missed the point entirely.
Smoking gives you cancer.
Cellphone use does not give you cancer.
Read the report before being a tosser. Oh wait, never mind.
Mr Brislen has just noted:
"Did you notice that aluminium production is rated as a Group 1 carcinogen... that's right, no more tin foil hats for us!"
so at the end of the day will any of you give up using your phones? I doubt it... I agree with Paul B, snorting a line of talc is likely to lead to health issues, especially if you'r e wearing tin foil underpants and hats
Hello Paul,
My microwave oven outputs approx 3-4uW/cm2 at 50cm. The measurement in my lounge varies from 1uW/cm2 at off peak time to 4-5uW/cm2 when all transceivers are operating. I know it is the Cell Phone Tower as if I hold a large stainless steel oven tray between the meter and Cell Phone Tower (40 meters away) then the reading drops off. I have been in contact with Martin, I use a very basic meter, confirmed the readings with a second meter and do not require a third reading.
I acknowledge that these readings are 1% of the NZ/ICNIRP limit. However most people are unaware that this is a thermal limit based upon heating tissue not a non-thermal limit that for example bone pulse stimulators produce when healing bones. There are hundreds of studies showing various non-thermal effects. WHO only reclassified RF because of the mounting evidence of harmful effects of brain cancers by heavy Cell Phone Users(which was reported in the Interphone study).
I have an engineering background and know that Cell Phone Towers can be placed/elevated so that they do not expose the local residents to pulsed emf. Residents can live with CPTs without being exposed, unfortunately $$$ drives the placement decision, not good egineering practice or precautionary principle.
So if it's only 1% of the limit what's the problem? Are the limits too high?
@ Toa,
It's so refreshing to see somebody with training in the field and the ability to be emperical weigh in!
JK, also electrical engineering background.
@JK I too have an undisclosed background in this thing and i think you're full of BS. See how easy it is to be empirical and weigh in?!
"See how easy it is to be empirical and weigh in?!"
Yes, I see that you majored in English and Critical Thinking :-)
I also see that your emotional attachment to the topic, coupled with your irrational fear of subject matters you do not understand has forced you into reacting in an aggressive manner.
Chill bro, there's so much more to be scared about in our world.
:-)
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below