Cell phones and cancer: Who cares what WHO says?

Today’s media hoopla about the World Health Organization classifying cell phone use as “possibly carcinogenic” is much ado about nothing.

The studies the WHO relies on are weak association studies that have zero reliability.

Study subject radiation exposure is based on self-report and so is uncertain. No one knows what causes gliomas, so confounding risk factors could not be ruled out. The reported statistical associations are not strong enough to overcome the inherently unscientific nature of epidemiology.

Most epidemiologic studies report no link between cell phone use and cancer. That some do is no surprise — just by chance some will. That all the studies basically bracket the no-effect level indicates that cell phone use poses no cancer risk.

That the WHO panel was led by Jonathan Samet is yet another red flag of junk science.

Hundreds of millions have used cell phones for decades without any detectable health effects. Before that, studies of military radio operators reported no ill effects from more intense exposures to radio frequency waves.

The bottom line is that the WHO classification is a political judgment — not a scientific outcome — one that was no doubt pushed by grant-grubbing cell phone researchers and cheered on by the tin foil hat crowd.

15 thoughts on “Cell phones and cancer: Who cares what WHO says?”

  1. Brain cancer stats are several years behind. How many of us know someone who has or had a brain tumor? Many of us. They used to be very rare. Many of the current ones are probably from cordless home phones. As for the TSA screenings, those are ionizing radiation and there have been many doctors who have come out in protest to those and recent studies have shown that TSA has been lying (surprised?) about the amount of radiation they put out. It appears that they put out 10x the amount TSA reports and now homeland security has vans that can drive around and x ray other cars and houses at random to look and see whatever they want to see and expose everyone it it’s path to ionizing radiation. we are under siege and the enemy is us. something has to be done in the name of self defense.

  2. WHo says gliomas (cancerous brain tumors) have increased in mobile phone users. Well, there are plenty of people who have had gliomas or have recurring gliomas who haven’t even used cell phones, my elderly uncle included. If heat from radiation is the cause, why isn’t WHO warning us that we can get gliomas and not just melenoma from getting too much sun? And why isn’t WHO warning us that we can get radiated even worse by going through frequent TSA screenings?

  3. I’ve never read it but I’ll bet its true: “Cell Phones Save Thousands Each Year By Improving Medical Response To Automobile Accidents”.

  4. It’s official! You can no longer believe science. The new science is either political or commercial. It is a sad day for America and the world.

  5. When I first saw the story on TV news, the closed caption advised us to keep cel-phones 25 “mountains” away from your head (they later corrected it to “millimeters”). I wasn’t surprised at the first rendition as it fit the logic of the story so well.

    These people do not have enough imagination to come up with an original scare so they must dredge up one from the landfill of history. I was reading a medical journal a while back and one “expert” was regurgitating the old cannard about power lines and cancer. His comment spoke volumes; “Well we know that there are many credible studies that can find no link between power lines and cancer, BUT WE THINK–!”

  6. Cellphones emit (nonionizing) radiation.
    The head of a cellphone user absorbs some of the radiation.
    This produces heat.
    Introduction of heat raises temperature.
    It is possible that a temperature difference may affect cancer rates.
    It is possible that the effect may be positive for some cancers.

    Therefore…
    Wearing a hat increases head temperature, therefore wearing a hat may increase some cancer rates.
    Ban Hats.

    Hair is an insulator. It increased head temperature.
    Shave everyone’s head.

  7. I’ve always wanted to come with a “something” that may cause “X” to happen and then get a government grant to research it further.

  8. The article about this, in the Montreal Gazette, was full with weazel words such as , could, may, possible, etc., and then put this problem at the same “cancer causing” level as coffee. BUT, apart from promising more, much more investigations, (i.e., more research dollars) as there is no definitive proof, only conjecture, already indicated that governments should start doing something about this. What? Ban cell phones?
    Louis Vroomen

  9. This is sort of good news bad news. On one hand it is bad to see junk science ride again, on the other, it would be good to have less cell phone yacking, particularly when people are driving.

  10. ANd again: the passive SMOKE LIES

    Rising Asthma Prevalence Baffles Experts

    Download Complimentary Source PDF
    By John Gever, Today
    Published: May 03, 2011

    The proportion of Americans with asthma rose by almost a full percentage point, to 8.2%, from 2001 to 2009, according to the CDC, despite improved outdoor air quality and reduced indoor exposures to tobacco smoke.

    Moreover, rates among African-American children were more than double the national average and increased faster than for other groups, CDC researchers reported online in Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report.

    The 2009 prevalence in non-Hispanic black children was 17%, up from 11.4% in 2001.
    Other groups with higher than average asthma rates included male children (11.3%), adult women (9.7%), African-American adults (8.7%), individuals living in poverty (10.6%), and residents of the Northeast (8.7%

  11. Just like the Passive SMOKE LIARS

    Excerpt:Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-officialBy Victoria Macdonald, Health CorrespondentThe results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: “There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.”And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal……prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 – 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

  12. Like they say passive smoke does,now Phones,But they Never ever mention ALCOHOL is the Biggest cause of CANCER in THE WORLD

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.