Mobile phones and cancer: misleading headlines fail to mention rats

Ridiculous article that is carrying the industry line that rat studies don’t apply to humans. then why do a study? animal studies are done to determine risks to humans. The lead of the study, Ronald Melnick has said that the peer reviewed study found “clear evidence of cancer…” Otis Brawley, outgoing President of the American Cancer Society said: “This is a paradigm shift in our understanding of microwaves and cancer.” The industry, The FDA which is in the pocket of the Wireless industry are pulling out all stops in flooding the media with lies about the results of the study. This is just business as usual for an industry and the FDA that cares more about profits and revenue than human lives. Get money out of politics and we’ll begin getting the truth about some things.

It would seem that Weilin Wu does not understand animal carcinogenicity studies.

In the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) study on rats, cell phone radiofrequency radiation caused cancer, as well as DNA damage. This is extremely relevant to humans, as all human carcinogens are also animal carcinogens. The exposure was given in high dosage, because it would be impossible in an experimental study to include very large numbers of animals to mimic exposure of human populations.

We have scientific evidence of an association between cell phone and cancer in humans. Epidemiology studies particularly in Sweden by the Hardell group , in France by Coureau et al and in the Interphone study, have shown that radiofrequency radiation at lower doses as at current, widely distributed exposure levels will induce cancer in an appreciable number of humans.

These studies on humans — not rats — were looking at the cell phone brain cancer association from data that is now a decade old. Remember that it takes years for scientists to perform and publish their research. All these long-term studies found that humans who are “heavy” users of cellular phones had higher risks for two types of tumors: a deadly type of brain cancer called glioblastoma and a tumor of the hearing nerve called a vestibular schwannoma also known as an acoustic neuroma. However, a person would fall into the category of “heavy” cell phone user in these studies if they used the cell phone to one side of their head for just around 30 minutes a day for ten years. The “heavy” cell phone users in these studies are the “light” users of today.

Teenagers use cell phones all day and sleep with them all night. Children are handed phones by busy parents who are unaware the phones emit radiation.

Can it be just a coincidence that the two types of cancers found in the NTP rats — schwannomas and gliomas — are the very same cell type of tumors found in long term cell phone human users, vestibular schwannomas and glioblastomas?

Statisticians and epidemiologists publish their peer reviewed research after extensive statistical analysis and expert peer review ensuring the associations are not merely “by chance.” Reports that refer to these findings as “statistical flukes” lack technical substantiation.

We test animals in order to predict effects on humans. This is how drugs are developed. Every compound known to cause cancer in humans also produces it in animals when adequately tested, according to the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization.

The National Toxicology Program’s positive results replicate positive results from the large Ramazzini animal study, which exposed rats for a lifetime to radiofrequency at much lower doses than the NTP study. Both studies found definite evidence of carcinogenicity. Both found the same tumors: schwannomas of the hearts in male rats. These important animal and human data added to our ever increasing knowledge of the mechanisms and published biological effects of non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation is sufficient to categorize wireless radiofrequency radiation as a Group 1 human carcinogen.

For Weilin Wu argue that what happens in rats does not apply to humans ignores a little known reality – regulations are based on research studies involving mostly rats, rabbits and small monkeys.

Furthermore, while regulatory limits are “intended” to account for children, the reality is that they do not do so. The scientific data clearly and repeatedly shows that this radiation penetrates more intensely into children’s bodies and brains. Such data were not available at that time.

Children’s brains are rapidly developing. A recent replication study that found memory damage in teenagers after just one year of cell phone use to the head should give the entire world pause.

It is time for voluntary and government health agencies to issue straightforward recommendations to the public on how people can reduce cell phone usage and wireless radiation at home. Policies to decrease our everyday exposures in neighborhoods, work and schools should be enacted. We must take action now to reduce wireless exposure to mankind to as low as reasonably achievable.

Anthony Miller MD, FRCP, FRCP (C), FFPH, FACE
Professor Emeritus, Dalla Lana School of Public Health; Senior Medical Advisor, Environmental Health Trust, USA; Previous Director Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute of Canada

I am worried how Cancer Research loves to tell everyone that there is no risk associated with mobile phones. They also fail to mention the current guidelines is based on studies where research was done by industry funded studies and/or based on the idea of risk being associated with damage from the heat of the devices (what SARS is based on)

They fail to mention new research (and lots of it) which looks at the pulse effect causing more damage to cells than heat (this is mainly wifi and 4g)

In summary, I am very suspicious about how Cancer Research likes to tell people everything is ok, when more and more research suggests the opposite.

I am no expert, but if you do your own research, I am sure you will come to a viewpoint different to Cancer Research UK

Animal testing is frequently used as indicative of safety (e.g. cosmetics etc). The vastness and thoroughness of this study is ignored in the above article. If you go to youtube and search the main author of the study, he defends the study against the main criticisms that the media has tried to use to dismiss the study. Cancer Research are more interested in dismissing claims than hearing our those scientists who have spent their entire lives (i.e. it is their job!) researching this. Doesn’t seem a very balanced article in that regard.

I guess the author intentionally left out that GBM (brain can associated with heavy cell phone use in most positive studies) has doubled since the introduction of cell phone’s in 1995. Either the author isn’t doing their research or is a telecomm lobbyist.

Cancer Research is COMPRISED with corporate money !!! Way too quick to dismiss findings. You people are sick and evil !!

Absolutely Disgusting.

Cancer Research is COMPRISED with corporate money !!! Way too quick to dismiss findings. You people are sick and evil !!

Disgusting

What If you are wrong? Will cancer Research be liable for people phone usage for seemingly debunking these headline. Did you know that Lloyds of London (one of the biggest underwriters of insurance) has excluded any claims related to EMF’s and radiation from mobile phones? If the insurer won’t cover it they must be expecting ALOT of claims.

How many rats use mobiles? How many dogs drink eight pints of beer or smoke twenty fags a day? The folly of basing anything on animal research is, to me, transparent.