What Does the World’s Leading Agency for Carcinogens Say About Cell Phones?
Make cell phones root cause Cancer? This is a question that billions of people would like to have answered and that I address in my video Cell Phone Brain Tumor Risk?. That is why we have the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization, the recognized authority for Determine What is and is not carcinogenic. There are five categories: Group 1 carcinogens are substances that we know are most likely to cause cancer in humans. Group 2A likely causes cancer. Group 2B may cause cancer. We are not sure which active ingredients are classified as Group 3. and Group 4 agents are unlikely to cause cancer.
In May 2011, 30 scientists from 14 countries met at the IARC to assess the carcinogenicity of radiation emitted by cell phones and cell phones completed Given the limited amount of evidence available, cell phones are “potentially carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2B). So they are not classified as a Group 1 carcinogen that is definitely known to be a carcinogen, like plutonium or processed meat, or as a likely carcinogen like DDT, Monsanto’s Roundup pesticide, or normal meat, but they are classified as a possible carcinogen. ranked similar to canned vegetables like kimchi.
This classification was made more than five years ago. The evidence continues to rise and so did the last two systematic reviews in 2017 found a 33 percent increase in the likelihood of brain tumors with long-term use and shown 46 percent higher chances of getting tumors on the phone side of your head – and the reviews included the industry-funded studies that were blamed Be biased and flawed, and underestimate the risk in contrast to independent studies that are free from “financial conditioning”. How’s that for a euphemism? With this in mind, some scientists are pushing for the IARC to classify cell phones as likely carcinogens or even as re-classified bump they up to group 1, at least in brain tumors and acoustic neuromas, a type of inner ear tumor.
However, the IARC classification for cell phones is currently potentially carcinogenic. What does that mean? What do we do with this information? Well, given the uncertainty, we could consequences “The precautionary principle” and use simple personal measures to reduce our exposure, e.g. B. by not holding the phone directly to our head all the time. Indeed, the “main concern of cell phones is that this is usually the case held close to the head ”, which is particularly important for children. However, there is no evidence of finger cancer, so you can still text messages.
Other possible personal recommendations lock in Wait a moment before putting your phone to your ear if you don’t have a headset because “when the phone connects, the emission is high.” And don’t fall in love with those anti-radiation gizmos, these “ so-called protective covers, “as they can make the situation worse by forcing the phone to amplify the signal.
Not all agreebut with this precautionary approach. Employees from two trade organizations in the mobile phone industry emphasize: “There are many aspects of human activity that are not“ completely harmless to health ”- for example, transportation (including aviation) and hot showers. So they suggest that we should just accept this risk as it’s worth it. Waiting. Hot showers? How in could we scald or something? In any case, they go on to suggest that we shouldn’t make recommendations because “such judgment should be made by parents on a personal basis for their own children,” and if we issue guidelines or anything like that, people might get nervous and we might everyone knows that “fear itself can have harmful health consequences”. Basically, the cell phone industry cares about your health so much that you don’t have to worry about your pretty little head.
Still, it’s all open discussed in the literature on risk analysis. “From a public health perspective, it can make sense to give cell phone users voluntary precautionary advice on how to use cell phones so that they can make informed decisions.” – But what if the public can’t deal with the truth? We don’t want to freak people out. There is still “scientific uncertainty” and we do not want to “encourage inappropriate fears”. For example, brain tumor is initially rare. Only you to have about a 1 in 15,000 chance per year of getting a brain tumor, Even if cell phones double your risk, you only have a 1 in 7,500 chance. You’re more likely to be killed by a cellphone at the hands of a distracted driver than cancer. So whether the health authorities want to inform The public about precautionary options really remains more of a political decision.
For more information on cell phones and WiFi, see:
What about meat and cancer? See my video Carcinogens in meat. For more information on the IARC decision and industry response, please visit:
What about the cancer risk for medical diagnostic radiation? See:
In health,
Michael Greger, MD
PS: If you haven’t already, you can subscribe to my free videos Here and check out my live presentations:
