Skip to main content

Guess WHO got the cell phone cancer issue wrong . . .

That's right, WHO (the World Health Organization) decided to throw science to the wind and declare cell phones a cancer risk comparable to lead, car exhaust and chloroform. I have to wonder, have they suddenly lost their minds?

Read this part very slowly - there's no evidence that cell phones are carcinogenic.

There are two reasons I say this with such confidence:

1. The National Cancer Institute says there's no clear evidence that cell phones cause cancer.

In fact, they announced the most comprehensive analysis of the issue ever - less than 2 weeks ago - making this very point!

To quote the NCI, "Research studies have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancer. A large international study (Interphone) published in 2010 found that, overall, cell phone users have no increased risk for two of the most common types of brain tumo - glioma and meningioma. For the small proportion of study participants who reported spending the most total time on cell phone calls there was some increased risk of glioma, but the researchers considered this finding inconclusive."

Now you may find terms like "inconclusive" less than satisfying, but bear in mind that the WHO isn't saying that they don't know if cell phones are dangerous. They're equating cell phones to things we know to be dangerous, despite the fact that there's no significant science backing up the cell phone/cancer claims.

2. Physics tells us that cell phone emissions can't cause cancer.

The type of signals that cell phones produce of made of photons. Those photons are too low in energy to damage your DNA. Put another way, the photons from a cell phone are simply too big to interact with DNA. If they can't affect your DNA, they can't cause cancer.

My favorite physics curmudgeon, Bob Park, has explained this much better than I could ever hope to, and he's done so many, many times. I'll say this, if you can pass high school physics, then you should be able to understand Bob's explanations about why cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer. (Even if you failed physics, but can read this sentence, you should be able to understand the National Cancer Institute summary of the research data.)

Yes, cell phones get warm. Yes, they can transfer that warmth to your head. But your pillow gets warm too. You probably prefer a warm shower over a cold one. And when you were a baby, you probably snuggled against the warmth of your momma or daddy. None of these things cause cancer because your body is great at whisking away excess warmth to keep most of you, and especially your brain, at a very constant temperature. Heat has been shown to damage DNA in tissue - when you cook it - but you would be screaming in pain long before you'd have to worry about heat-induced DNA damage. The last I checked, my cell phone was nowhere near red hot.

So, what's the harm in the WHO's absurd statements? Even if the evidence for cell phone induced cancer is essentially non-existent, why should I care? If you want to wrap your head in aluminum foil to protect yourself from cell tower emissions, or alien voices, or micrometeorites, what business is it of mine?

The primary problem I have with this whole issue is that ignorance and stupidity suck. The people who should know better at the WHO are being stupid, and it resonates with the ignorant people who rely on the WHO for good information.

I'm particularly upset because I readily admit that I'm ignorant about so many other medical things that I would have considered consulting the WHO about. But when I see the WHO make an idiotic proclamation like this, I have to wonder how many other idiotic things they're doing.

I now have one definitive piece of data that tells me the WHO lacks credibility. From this point on, I'm crossing them off the list of experts that I'm going to turn to when I need health and medical advice.


  1. do your homework. i am too tired to write another comment. thousands of studies confirm this. elizabeth cardis who headed the iarc study did an about face from the original official conclusions and advised caution with cell phone use. the who and american cancer society are so compromised with industry money that they have no relevance except that they have powered their way into credibility with the money that has bought them through the years. corruption, racketeering will also be exposed with the who announcement. this will be fun to watch however it will take more than my lifetime. the telecoms have known this would come someday and factored it into their business expenses. the trillions and trillions they made will be way more than enough to buy off judges and pay settlements.

  2. Jail, as long as physics and the NCI study agree I see no need to even bother addressing conspiratorial paranoia. There's no known physical mechanism for cell phone radiation to cause cancer, and no epidemiological evidence to suggest there should be a mechanism.

    1. There are studies that show it damages DNA for starters. Also, there are down stream issues that we have not yet become fully abreast of. It affects 143 proteins in the brain. What does that do downstream in the body? What does having that happen constantly do to the body? What about the VGCC that ate triggered. What about the united states governmental military studies from decades ago documenting many biological affects related to this type of exposure. What about the people who get ill from exposure??What about eh BTP study showing increases in certain risks. What about Lennart Hardell's studies showing increases in cancers? There are and have been, documented athermal or nonthermal effects of the body. Those chronic affects are clearly causing biological problems. The yare certainly diverse I nature because genetics, epigenetics, and other exposures play a large role. I am amazed at the ignorance that is constantly displayed in regards to this topic. Ignorance plain and simple. You see this over and over again in history where there was ignorance, apathy and shills. Think of the tobacco industry actually and doctors advertising the products, using the products, and telling the public they could help with lung conditions. Seriously??Don't you remember that??What about asbestos??What about lead??What about DDT?? How does the public forget these things??
      Plus--and it is a big thing--why did the industry lobby the government so hard to get laws pass that they are not responsible for health damage from their product. The Telecom Act of 1996 made sure they were not held accountable. Why do the huge insurance companies refuse to insure for radiofrequency radiation damage to people's health?? They do it because they see what is happening. This is the hugest health crisis of our time. Billion affected and still the ignorant public can't put down the technology. In fact, they INSIST their kids get maximum exposure too. When the truth comes out--so many people will have been made ill and died that it will be the biggest thing in man's history.
      People keep saying they aren't experts in this area and then go on to tell us everything is safe. Funny because those who ARE experts are being ignored. We keep wanting studies to see if I tis harming anyone--but when people come forward who are being made ill by it--we mock and ridicule them. The industry knows the truth but they don't want you to know the truth.
      Stop being ignorant and open up a history book if you can't bring yourself to open up a research study or the tons of governmental research. There are mountains of research now showing harm. Cancer is just the tip of this huge, huge iceberg. Wake up people.

  3. I Think they'll be another survey out there next week saying that they are safe, but If the WHO says there's something in it, then it must be true, but we defenetly going to see a counter argument

  4. Dear Jail Bush,

    Your glib, false "do your homework" needs to be pointed at the IARC for their contemptuous and openly political approach to handling this entire affair. Instead of publishing first, they have decided to go forward with a press release that, quite literally, shows their utter disregard for empirical data. That Alice-in-Wonderland ("sentence first!") view was neatly summarized by the words, "The Working Group did not quantitate the risk". In other words, they knew the outcome before they started. Actual evidence is unnecessary.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. Cell Phones Cause Cancer?
    Are you concerned about the risk of getting cancer from long-term cell phone
    usage? Finally, some scientific studies assessing the link between cell
    phones and cancer have been conducted. The results are in, and I for one was
    surprised... mastercomputech
    Cell Phones and Cancer: No Evidence

  7. Off-topic: what is the record on micrometeorites anyway?

  8. I have lost more than a bit of trust in the World Health organization.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts

How 4,000 Physicists Gave a Vegas Casino its Worst Week Ever

What happens when several thousand distinguished physicists, researchers, and students descend on the nation’s gambling capital for a conference? The answer is "a bad week for the casino"—but you'd never guess why.

Ask a Physicist: Phone Flash Sharpie Shock!

Lexie and Xavier, from Orlando, FL want to know: "What's going on in this video ? Our science teacher claims that the pain comes from a small electrical shock, but we believe that this is due to the absorption of light. Please help us resolve this dispute!"

The Science of Ice Cream: Part One

Even though it's been a warm couple of months already, it's officially summer. A delicious, science-filled way to beat the heat? Making homemade ice cream. (We've since updated this article to include the science behind vegan ice cream. To learn more about ice cream science, check out The Science of Ice Cream, Redux ) Image Credit: St0rmz via Flickr Over at Physics@Home there's an easy recipe for homemade ice cream. But what kind of milk should you use to make ice cream? And do you really need to chill the ice cream base before making it? Why do ice cream recipes always call for salt on ice?