Three months ago newspapers and TV channels the world over created a major public scare when they carried reports linking cellphones to cancers in human beings. They quoted the “deliberations” of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) held in Lyon, France in the last week of May as saying so.
But now health experts debunk the concerns saying they were based on the “hyped or exaggerated” portrayal in the media of the carcinogenic potential of cellphone use. They also accuse the media of reading of isolated parts of the discussions from the IARC meeting. The IARC, which is controlled by the World Health Organisation, has not officially published its full deliberations and a complete report (monograph) is expected only next year.
This isolated reporting has only created unnecessary fears in the common man and triggered wide debate in India, which is fast emerging as a major cellphone hub in the region. Almost everyone in the world is exposed to radiofrequency-electromagnetic frequency (RF-EMF) of 30 kHz to 300 GHz from a variety of sources including cellphones, Bluetooth-enabled products, induction heaters, high-powered pulsed radar, mobile-phone base stations, broadcast antennas, and certain medical devices.
What had really happened at the IARC meeting, according to experts is that there were suggestions to declare radio-frequency from cellphones as a “possible carcinogen”, and the meeting agreed to include RF-EMF in the list of items that could possibly cause cancers (Group 2B) after it failed to muster proper scientific evidence.
Dr Gopala Kovvali, President, Carcinogenesis Foundation, USA, compared the possible harm that a cellphone would cause to that of a cup of coffee, talcum powder or pickled vegetables. He said cellphone use is no more dangerous than pickled vegetables, which too falls under class 2B carcinogens. Other items in Group 2B include styrofoam cups, automobile exhaust and common medications like valium.
That it was unnecessary media hype became clear after the IACR panel comprising 30 scientists from 14 countries officially released a summary of the deliberations in the journal Lancet Oncology. The panel delved into as many as 40 studies but found “limited evidence” of radiofrequency-electromagnetic frequency carcinogenicity. It noted that similarly, studies examining mechanisms of carcinogenesis provided “only weak mechanistic evidence relevant to RF-EMF-induced cancer in humans.”
“The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma (a malignant type of brain cancer) and acoustic neuroma (cancer of nerve that links ear to the brain), and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers,” the team reported. The IARC, however, has not conducted any study of its own.
And this brings us to the debate on what constitutes a “possible carcinogen” and is the cellphone alone in this category? The IARC has a long list of items that are definitely carcinogenic in nature and those that possibly cause cancers. At present, IARC has placed radio-frequency from wireless phones in the Group 2B (possible carcinogens).
Way back in 1991, coffee was placed in Group 2B. The note against coffee in the IARC list says there’s some evidence of an inverse relationship between coffee drinking and cancer of the large bowel; coffee drinking could not be classified as to its carcinogenicity to other organs. In other words it means that as far as the large intestine is concerned, coffee is cancerous, but it is safe for other body parts.
Dr Gopala, who is also the executive editor of the Journal of Carcinogenesis, says that after reading and seeing the earlier media reports, he was “editorially excited” that a new source of cancer in humans was found. “I was sure that I could show the reports to my family and convince them to give up cellphones and save a huge amount of money. When I realised that the reports suggested that radiofrequency-energy from cellphones was not considered any more carcinogenic than coffee, as both are now in the company of other class 2B carcinogens, I gave up the idea, lest I be asked to give up coffee, as I am used to caffeine without which my brain freezes!” What many had missed was that the studies that were discussed at the IARC meeting were conducted 11 years ago, much before the world caught up with 3G technology. As Dr Gopala noted, the old type of cellphones emitted 100 times more radiofrequency than more modern wireless instruments. In their over-enthusiasm some enterprising researchers used anatomical (a life size mannequin with internal body parts shown) models of human beings to drive home their argument that cellphones cause damage to the brain, particularly in children. Anatomical models cannot always reflect the true studies.
As Dr Gopala clarifies, “Looking at the pictures on TV of the brain that was impacted by the wicked RF energy coming from the cellphones, I was remorseful to have ever used the cellphone. I was especially saddened to hear that the brain of a child was more vulnerable to the harmful effects of the RF-EMF. Little did I know then that these conclusions were based on the anatomical models of humans.”
Incidentally, the IARC last week published a research report which says that regular users of mobile phones were not statistically significantly more likely to have been diagnosed with brain tumours than non-users.
The report also said that children who started to use mobile phones at least five years ago were not at increased risk compared to those who had never regularly used mobile phones. No increased risk of brain tumours was observed for brain areas receiving the highest amount of exposure. The absence of an exposure response relationship either in terms of the amount of mobile phone use or by localisation of the brain tumour argues against a causal association.