First Clear Evidence Cell Phone Radiation Can Cause Cancer in Rats

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
The US National Toxicology Program has found “clear evidence” that exposure to cell phone radiation increases the risk for at least one type of cancer in male rats. While rats and humans are not exactly equivalents, the results appear to align with the biggest cell phone-radiation human study to date, INTERPHONE.

…in male rats, there was “clear evidence” that exposure to cell phone radiation increased risk for a rare type of malignant tumor called schwannoma in the connective tissues that surround nerves in the heart (they found “equivocal” evidence for the same thing in female rats). They also found “some evidence” that the radiation caused malignant glioma—a type of brain cancer affecting glial cells—in the male rats.
 
sort of like that red dye in M&M back in the late 70s/early 80s lol

People have been exposed to electromagnetic radiation for well over a century now and voilà, we are all still here
 
I don't doubt the apparent risk, but humans have much thicker bodies, and thicker bones. I imagine that eliminates the risk a fair amount.
 
If you're a male rat, you have a very slightly increased risk of a few types of cancers. If you're a female rat or a mouse you're fine. It's not all bad for the male rats, though: you'll also live longer if you're exposed to cellphone radiation (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-studies-link-cell-phone-radiation-with-cancer/).

Science is slow, and about the only things showed here are that additional study would be useful, and that if cellphones truly have carcinogenic effects the risk is likely to be very, very small.
 
the linked article is a bunch of lies, omisisons and misquotes. one can dig the original data here
pay close attention to the 2years results

some highlights:
-there were 4 groups of microwave exposure: 0 exposure, 1.5W/kg, 3.0W/kg and 6.0W/kg

-6W/Kg lived significantly longer, most likely because they ended up gaining less weight as they become older
-all of the allegedly brain cancer reported where in the range of 1 cancer found among 90-100 rats of each test group. no way in hell that is statistically significant, much less, " clear evidence".
- among females, 0W/Kg was the group with more malignant tumors, almost twice as much as the 6W/Kg group.
 
I've always used the speaker phone 98% of the time to keep the thing a few inches away...why take the chance if you don't need to?
 
I don't doubt the apparent risk, but humans have much thicker bodies, and thicker bones. I imagine that eliminates the risk a fair amount.
We're a hard headed species alright.
 
...cell phone radiation increases the risk for at least one type of cancer in male rats.

... increased risk for a rare type of malignant tumor called schwannoma in the connective tissues that surround nerves in the heart


Makes me think it's a confirmed but very very tiny increased risk OR a specific vulnerability to rats. Because schwannoma incidence rate in the US is literally 0.6-1.1 per 100,000.

Not only that, cardiac schwannoma is so rare I don't think it's even recorded.

It's always been low, and we're not exactly seeing an increasing trend. Its a rare as fuck cancer, and its usually not even malignant.

In comparison we ARE seeing colon cancer rates skyrocket in 1st world populations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
non-ionizing radiation is causing cancer... riiiiiight

You don't necessarily need ionising radiation, per se. Biological chemistry is basically weak ion interaction in an aqueous environment. Since charged ions are susceptible to electromagnetic motive force, any EM flux can potentially interfere with things like transcription or repair.

I won't be ditching my cellphone anytime soon though.
 
You don't necessarily need ionising radiation, per se. Biological chemistry is basically weak ion interaction in an aqueous environment. Since charged ions are susceptible to electromagnetic motive force, any EM flux can potentially interfere with things like transcription or repair.

I won't be ditching my cellphone anytime soon though.

you are mostly right, but not quite getting to the point: all know things that cause cancer mess with DNA: chemicals that bound to DNA and its proteins, virus that put genes inside the host's DNA; phptons that break DNA. Microwave radiation most usual source are not cellphones, but plain black body radiation from every matter in earth, AKA heat radiation. and those photons can NOT break DNA, even at 6W/kg.

Makes me think it's a confirmed but very very tiny increased risk OR a specific vulnerability to rats. Because schwannoma incidence rate in the US is literally 0.6-1.1 per 100,000.

There was 1 case out of a group of 99 rats. This is not significant in qui-square, T score, Z score or any other statistical manipulation tool one uses. Unlike the longer life spam of the 6W/kg group, which was significant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
This is far from the first scientifically viable example that non-ionizing radiation can have health impacts (both positive and negative, depending on the spectrum of course. Unfortunately, our major telecom technology isn't typically emitting the beneficial frequencies). There are lots of studies showcasing the possible negative effects of the frequencies emitted by mobile phones from studies conducted in Europe (and yes, by universities and other public-funded locations); note that not all of these have to do with cancer. One really interesting article I've seen recently related to some of my professional studies has to do with the ability for certain common frequencies to change the ability for pathogens - including bacteria that normally couldn't - to cross the blood-brain barrier (as well as effects of capillary and other micro-vascular elements themselves )

Sadly, there is a large propaganda war being waged by vested interests - think of the amount of money worldwide in wireless communication from cell phones right down to our routers etc - to try and undermine it, "debunking" the work and slandering those engaged or supporting it. Its sad to see how many people go along with this, considering we have historical examples - look at how the tobacco industry dealt with those, especially early on, who showed evidence of harmful effects. Likewise, the agriculture and chemical industry on the "safety" of everything from DDT to Glyphosate. Hell, the artificial sweetener industry is still trying to claim that many of its products have "no negative health impacts" despite evidence to the contrary (lets not forget that an exclusive focus on cancer is a tactic by these industries; "X doesn't cause cancer! See, you had nothing to worry about! Those tinfoil hat idiots aren't on the side of science!" . Lots of studies on sucralose and ace-k for instance were funded by the industry showing it didn't cause cancer, but they ignored that had other negative effects such as those related to endocrine disruption) All of these are small-beans compared to the amount of money in wireless telecom in our increasingly connected world, so a consensus that current commonly used frequencies are harmful is unthinkable; another sad case of vested interests putting their money before the well being of people and planet.

We need more honest study not entangled by industry or vested interests looking into the effects of mobile phones, wireless networking, and other frequencies of commonly used non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. I don't want to give up the convenience of wireless any more than anyone else, but through good research we can see that there may be other frequencies and power levels we can use safely to have the best of both worlds.

Edit: I haven't looked at this particular one in depth, but here's a recent study done by Trent University in Canada regarding EMF / NIR and cancer directly. https://www.jscimedcentral.com/EnvironmentalScience/environmentalscience-5-1045.pdf .

Edit: Lots of stuff in this powerpoint I just picked up on a search. check out the citiations within yourself if you like. https://betweenrockandhardplace.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/unimelbourne-december-11-2015.pdf

Tons more stuff out there. I'm not saying that there isn't some biased or "bad" science on both sides (as there can be with all things) , but the narrative that there is no possibility of harm and anyone looking into it is a fool clearly can't be tolerated any longer, the way we no longer tolerate the idea that the safety of tobacco is not to be questioned.
 
Last edited:
We need more honest study not entangled by industry or vested interests looking into the effects of mobile phones, wireless networking, and other frequencies of commonly used non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. I don't want to give up the convenience of wireless any more than anyone else, but through good research we can see that there may be other frequencies and power levels we can use safely to have the best of both worlds.

Way too many times we have experienced the other trend: vested economic interests creating fake science terror to sell new tech solutions. Ozone layer CFC scam, Tamiflu/H1N1 scam, authism/ thiomersal-free vaccines scam.

the very fact that all of the above scams still have ardent believers kind of defeats the whole purpose of using science to dictate your economic choices: idiots and their money will break apart, no matter how strong the science evidence is.

back to the article: if you are a male rat and want to live longer, cook yourself with 6W/kg; if you are a female rat and want to avoid cancer, by means stay away from microwave free environments.
if you are human, do whatever you want because facts and science will not change your behavior.
 
So does this mean I have to take back the Samsung S9 I just gave to my pet rat.
 
sort of like that red dye in M&M back in the late 70s/early 80s lol

People have been exposed to electromagnetic radiation for well over a century now and voilà, we are all still here

The difference is people weren't holding a source of radiation right next to them for upwards of 8 hours a day.
 
lol okay, they just sat in front of radiation emitting CRT all day.... much ado about nothing
 


FTA

These numbers suggest that the one statistical effect seen in this study is caused by the unusually low tumor incidence in the control group, rather than a specific effect of cellphone radiation.

so the basis for their numbers has more to do with an unusually low rate of the control group.

interesting, and thanks for the read !
 
Back
Top