advertisement
First up - the alarming study by the US government which links cellphones to cancerous brain tumours, is plagued with red flags.
Early this week, partial findings of the US government funded, ‘mobile phones and cancer study’ on laboratory rats exposed to different levels of cellphone radiation was released. But despite the countless blaring headlines you’ve seen, there’s still not enough solid information for you to hang up your phone just yet.
In the two-years long $25 million study funded by the US National Toxicology Program, batches of 90 rats were exposed to varying levels of mobile phone radiation (from both GSM and CDMA devices) for approximately 9 hours-a-day.
Now these are preliminary findings, the final, more conclusive results will come out only by 2017, which will be done on 2,500 lab rats.
Turns out there are plenty and the results aren’t as explosive as they are being described. Here’s why:
1. The findings are partial. Every study has to be peer reviewed for it to be termed credible - i.e. it has to be evaluated by independent scientists in the light of other study material available. In this case, the researchers refused to reveal the fine print on the data and therefore it hasn’t been accepted by the medical community.
2. In the study, rats were exposed to 9 hours of ‘total body’ radiation. Now that’s not the case when we talk on phones, only a small area around our ears is exposed to radiation.
3. Rats were exposed to 9 hours of radiation, 7 days a week. In humans, that’s a lot of talktime!
4. Unlike humans, rats develop cancer as a result of ageing. It is a normal process for them. What is strange is that all the cancer-free rats in the control group died earlier than the ones who got cancer. So does this mean that even though cellphones can give cancer, they help you live longer?
Haha, no way!
Clearly, cancer could’ve been a result of the normal ageing process and had nothing to do with radiation.
5. The fact that no rat in the control group got cancer is also bizarre. The average incidence of cancer in the breed of rats used in animal studies, Sprague Dawley, is 30 to 50%. So a batch of 90 rats remaining cancer-free hints that the result could be a random false positive. More data is required to be convinced of the scientific rationale of the research.
6. It’s striking that female rats did not get cancer. Unlike heart diseases, they surely aren’t protected against cancers and there’s no scientific explanation for oddity.
While the study might have its flaws, it does warrant a lot more in-depth research.
IIT Bombay Professor Girish Kumar, who has done the maximum research on cellphone and mobile tower radiation in India, urges the World Health Organisation to take immediate steps:
Group 1 is the highest level of carcinogens, includes, smoking, alcohol, asbestos and so on. Group 2A carries the ‘possible carcinogen’ risk.
The label is only half the story. It tells you what could happen but doesn’t tell you how likely it is to happen - almost saying, a boulder could kill you but not mentioning that it has to be dropped right on your head for you to die.
Nonetheless a WHO carcinogen label shouldn’t be taken lightly. If you are nervous about the cancer link, cut down on exposure levels (reduce cellphone time) replace it with something safer (don’t carry them in pockets and use earphones) or eliminate it altogether.
Until better evidence comes out, the ball’s in your court.
Also Read: Feeling Wonky? You Might Be Coming Down With Smartphone Sickness
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)
Published: 04 Jun 2016,01:19 PM IST