In our increasingly technological world, we are constantly exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic waves (RF-EMF). It would certainly be inconvenient, to say the least, if this ubiquitous and essential technology had negative health effects. But of course we would need to know if this were the case so that steps could be taken to fix it.
Fortunately, a recent systematic review conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) has found that there is no association between the use of cell phones (and resulting exposure to RF) and an increased risk of brain cancer. This is true of adult users, pediatric users, and workplace exposure. While reassuring, these results are not surprising, as we have discussed here many times before.
Before we dissect the study, let’s go over some background. The notion that RF from cell phones can increase the risk of brain cancer was never very plausible. EMF in the RF range is what is called “non-ionizing radiation”, which means it is too low energy to break chemical bonds. Ionizing radiation, which does break chemical bonds, can damage DNA and proteins, causing mutations and cellular damage. At most non-ionizing radiation can heat up tissue slightly.
So there really isn’t much of a plausible mechanism by which exposure to RF, even in close proximity and for long periods of time (such as common cell phone use), would cause cancer. This has not stopped almost constant fearmongering about RF going back decades. This even predates cellphones, with the fear that just living near power lines could increase the risk of leukemia (it doesn’t).
All of this has not stopped a cottage industry of sensationalism and snake oil devices to “protect” cell phone users from scary RF radiation. There has been a long line of bad reporting on this topic, it seems simply because the narrative that big industry is hiding the true risks of using their products is a compelling narrative that makes for click-worthy headlines.
There is also no shortage of devices that shield you from the RF of your cellphone. To the extent that these devices actually work (meaning that they block RF, not that they protect your health) they would prevent the cell phone from functioning. Most such devices are useless. Plus, if you truly wanted your cellphone to not put out RF when you don’t need it – put it in Airplane mode. That’s what it’s for.
Despite this, it is worth asking and investigating whether or not there could be any risk from a new technology that suddenly everyone is using. But researching risk is complicated, and certain to generate a lot of data noise that is tricky to parse through. This is why we need experts to carefully evaluate the evidence and tell us what it means.
One approach is to assess the potential hazard of an exposure – does it even theoretically cause biological harm? This is usually done with in-vitro studies or animal studies, and published in “toxicology” journals. This is useful research, but easily misinterpreted. The idea is to push biological systems to their breaking point, to see where that breaking point is, in order to estimate hazard. For example, rats can be given ridiculously high exposure rates to see what it would take to cause harm. This does not mean there is a risk to humans in real-life exposure settings.
With regard to RF, the animal data has been mostly negative but a little mixed. The research is divided into two categories – non-thermal exposure (exposure that does not significantly raise tissue temperature) and thermal levels of RF exposure. The non-thermal exposure literature is negative. The thermal exposure literature is mostly negative, but a little mixed. This is consistent with there being no hazard, but also with there being a small hazard at thermal levels of exposure that cannot be ruled out. This is the kind of technical science speak that often gets misinterpreted in the media, or by motivated snake oil peddlers.
Hazard, however, is just about the potential to cause injury. Risk is what we really want to know – what is the increase in risk for a negative outcome in various exposure scenarios? To assess risk we need human data. Unfortunately, for risk studies we cannot do randomized trials – you cannot randomize a study subject to be exposed to a potential hazard to see if it harms them. It’s not ethical. So we need to rely on observational studies.
We can ask the simple question – since the widespread adoption of cell phones in the 1990s, has the incidence of brain cancer (in general or of any specific type) increased? As you might expect, the answer is complicated, but it’s basically no. There is no clear increase in brain cancer over the last three decades. This is very reassuring. But there are many confounding factors to this kind of data, so by itself it’s not enough to demonstrate no risk. It’s possible, for example, that an increased risk from cell phones is being masked by a decrease due to other public health reasons. It’s also possible that an apparent increase is due to better diagnostic techniques or more thorough screening.
What is considered the most direct evidence is population or cohort based correlational studies – is there any correlation between the risk of getting brain cancer and exposure intensity or duration? It is these kinds of studies that are the focus of the recent WHO systematic review. They looked at 63 studies between 1994 and 2022, in 22 countries, making 119 different exposure comparisons. They found:
“There was no observable increase in mRRs (meta-relative risk) for the most investigated neoplasms (glioma, meningioma, and acoustic neuroma) with increasing time since start (TSS) use of mobile phones, cumulative call time (CCT), or cumulative number of calls (CNC).”
They found no increased risk in children or adults, regardless of the intensity or duration of exposure. This, again, is very reassuring. It should, in fact, put the question to bed, but when it comes to risk reassuring data never does.
Part of the problem is that you can never scientifically prove zero risk. You can only set upper limits statistically on the potential risk. This is why such studies often conclude things like – we did not detect any significant risk, but we cannot rule out a small risk below the detection threshold of the study.
Also – there is the question of the duration of the study. If you follow people for 10 years, that does not rule out a risk that only becomes significant after 20 years of exposure. So you can always ask for longer duration studies. This is why this review is helpful, because now we have data over 30 years.
However, some will then argue that the risk only became significant with the adoption of 5G technology. So research using 3G or older generation cell phones is not relevant. This creates a forever moving target. Once we show 5G is safe, 6G will be rolled out and the process will start all over again.
These caveats are semi-reasonable, in that it is true that shorter duration studies do not rule out a risk to longer durations, and studies with lower frequency technology may not perfectly predict the risks of higher frequency technology. The problem is, using this logic to dismiss decades of reassuring research about both hazard and risk, and setting an unrealistic and impractical threshold for evidence of lack of risk.
In life, there is no zero risk. There are no absolute guarantees of safety. This is not an excuse – this is reality. We always have to think about relative risk and the magnitude of risk, and not demand an impossible goal of zero risk.
Looking at the big picture, what we can say at this time is that – non ionizing radiation (especially non thermal) has no plausible mechanism of causing biological harm. A hazard from a currently unknown mechanism is always impossible to rule out, but is not very plausible here. Further, the observational data has not demonstrated any actual risk of exposure to RF through cell phone use or otherwise.
For me, the bottom line is, any remaining potential risk is too small to worry about. It is down in the background noise of life. You have more risk driving to work, eating food, and engaging in just about any recreational activity. In fact, worrying unnecessarily about the risks of RF from cell phones itself is likely a higher risk to you than the RF exposure. It can cause anxiety, make you vulnerable to wasting money and resources on anti-RF scams, and perhaps limit your use of a technology that might just save you one day. Even if you think these are small risks, the point is, the potential remaining risk of RF from cell phones is so small it is likely even less.
The WHO report is good news and, in the full context of the question of the risks of RF, is not surprising. Take it for the good news it is.
