New Study Review Adds to Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation with Brain Cancer

New Study Review Adds to Evidence Linking Cell Phone Radiation with Brain Cancer

A systematic study review published in October of 2024 by South Korean researchers, which analyzed 24 relevant studies, found significant evidence of a higher risk of malignant brain tumors, glioma and meningioma on the side of the head where cell phones were held.

They also found an increased risk of glioma, the most deadly type of brain tumor, in long-term, heavy cell phone users.

This is the seventh peer-reviewed systematic meta-analysis published between 2016 and 2024 that has found statistically significant connections between cell phone use and brain cancer.

The recent study review was published in Environmental Health, and authored by Jinyoung Moon, Jungmin Kwon and Yongseok Mun, researchers associated with the Departments of Environmental Health Science, Occupation and Environmental Medicine, as well as universities and hospitals in South Korea.

This most recent study on this subject is an important one to analyze in the wake of several highly biased WHO-sponsored study reviews on the health effects of cell phone radiation, which concluded there to be no significant link between EMFs and ill health effects, including cancerous tumors.

Let’s analyze this systematic review, why its results are significant, and then break down the reasons why many EMF-literate scientists have found the WHO-sponsored reviews to be unscientifically manipulated to create the illusion of inconclusive health effects from EMF exposure.

Every one of these recent study review authors, both independent and WHO-sponsored, publicly agrees that the risks of health effects from cell phone exposure need to be comprehensively reevaluated, based on the rapidly changing exposure levels and technology usage habits of modern populations, compared with the 1990s and early 2000s when the international and United States-based exposure “safety” guidelines were originally set.

These exposure guidelines have not been updated since 1996 in the US, and 1998 internationally.  If you think about your own life in the late ‘90s, and how drastically different your use of wireless radiation emitting technology was at that time, you will understand the urgency of the need to reevaluate these heavily outdated safety guidelines.

However, the conclusions each group has come to differ dramatically.  The independent researchers have concluded that modern cell phone radiation exposure is indeed a pressing concern, compiling and analyzing data from a growing body of scientific research finding a connection between cell phone radiation and cancer.  The WHO-sponsored researchers’ findings conveniently support the previous exposure limits set by the same organizations that many of the researchers themselves work for.

 

South Korean meta-analysis finds evidence of brain tumors connected to cell phone use

In the October 2024 meta-analysis by South Korean researchers, 19 case-control studies and 5 cohort studies were included.  Case-control and cohort studies are observational studies used in epidemiology and medical research.

Case-control studies are used to investigate whether exposure to a specific factor is associated with the outcome, in this case cell phone use and various types of brain cancer.  They use two groups:  the “case” group already has the outcome (the cancer diagnosis) and the “control” group does not have the outcome (no cancer diagnosis).  The researchers look back into the past to compare exposure to the risk factor (cell phone radiation) in both groups, to determine if the outcome is uniformly associated with higher exposure to the risk factor.  One advantage of case-control studies is that they’re retrospective, looking into the past to find results, which is useful to find results more quickly. One disadvantage of this study type is the “recall bias” factor, where it can be difficult for participants to recall their past exposures accurately.  To correct this as much as possible for cell phone radiation studies, phone call records from phone companies are acquired to collect exact data on usage.

Cohort studies are slightly different, as they are not retrospective, but prospective, following participants over a period of time to see who develops the outcome.  In this case, researchers would record data in real time of participants’ cell phone use, and over time will find out who becomes diagnosed with brain cancer.  Cohort studies are less prone to recall bias or misreporting (since data is being collected in real time), but the disadvantage is that chronic degenerative disease like cancer can have a long latency period, so fully accurate results can only be obtained by following participants over a very long period of time, which is time-consuming and expensive.

Here is an excerpt from the results of the meta-analysis:

“Ipsilateral users reported a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 1.40 (95% CI 1.21–1.62) compared to non-regular users. Users with years of use over 10 years reported a pooled OR of 1.27 (95% CI 1.08–1.48). When stratified by each type of brain tumor, only meningioma (OR 1.20 (95% CI 1.04–1.39)), glioma (OR 1.45 (95% CI 1.16–1.82)), and malignant brain tumors (OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.55–2.39)) showed an increased OR with statistical significance for ipsilateral users. For users with years of use over 10 years, only glioma (OR 1.32 (95% CI 1.01–1.71)) showed an increased OR with statistical significance.”

Ipsilateral is a term used in anatomy and medicine to describe something found on the same side of the body.  In contrast, contralateral means something found on the opposite side of the body.  The use of ipsilateral in this context refers to cell phones held against the same side of the head where a tumor was found, compared to tumors that were found on the opposite side of where the cell phone was routinely used.

A pooled odds ratio (OR) is a statistical summary that refers to the combined results of all the studies analyzed, and the odds of the outcome occurring in one group (such as the “case” group) compared to the odds of it occurring in another group (the “control” group).  A number higher than 1 means the ratio leans in the favor of the case group, which in this instance refers to the participants diagnosed with brain tumors in the case-control studies.  For the results to be statistically significant, meaning the outcome (cancer) is very likely to be associated with the exposure factor (cell phone use), you also want the “95% CI” to be higher than 1.  CI stands for Confidence Interval, which gives us a realistic span of the probability of the association.

Let’s take the first statistic quoted above, the pooled OR data for ipsilateral users vs. non-regular users as an example:  The OR is 1.40, which means the odds of brain cancer being diagnosed on the side of the head where the cell phone was regularly used is 40% higher than in “non-regular users” who only use cell phones infrequently, not regularly.  The following data, (95% CI 1.21–1.62), means that the realistic percentage increase (adjusting for potential covariates and inaccuracies) would be somewhere between 21% and 62%.  This remains a statistically significant increase.  If the lower number range of the CI goes below the number 1, the result is not considered to be statistically significant.

The next finding shows that those who have regularly used cell phones for more than 10 years have 27% higher odds (with a possible range of 8% to 48%) of being diagnosed with brain tumors, compared with those who have used cell phones for less than 10 years overall.

After that, the analysis goes on to compare specific tumor types for ipsilateral users.  Meningioma, a tumor that forms in the protective layers of tissue surrounding the brain and spinal cord, has a 20% higher odds of developing.  Glioma, a particularly aggressive, fast-growing and deadly type of brain tumor, was found to be 45% more likely to occur on the same side of the head as regular cell phone use.  Finally, when they only compared malignant versus non-malignant tumors, they found a 93% increase in occurrence, which is quite alarming.

These three types – malignant tumors, glioma, and meningioma – were found to be connected with regular ipsilateral cell phone use, at statistical significance.  There were also increased odds of glioma by 32% for long-term cell phone users (10+ years of regular use).

Further in the analysis, and we won’t include all the excerpts here, 11 studies that recorded over 896 cumulative hours of cell phone use found a 59% increased chance of brain tumors.  In this group of heavy, long-term cell phone users, glioma, meningioma and acoustic neuromas were found to be increased by 66%, 29% and 84% respectively.  Acoustic neuromas in particular were found to occur much more often with heavy and long-term cell phone use.

The introduction to this systematic study paper emphasizes that the associated between cell phone radiation and brain tumors found in these studies is likely conservative, compared to the real time modern cell phone exposure that most of us have today.  Therefore, these results, although they were found to be statistically significant, may not be reflective of the actual risk of exposure we have today.

 

“In recent years, the pattern of mobile phone use has changed rapidly. With the introduction of 3G phones for data transmission (so-called ‘smartphones’ such as iPhones or Android phones), people started using their mobile phones for other purposes than mere calling: web surfing, watching movies and videos through YouTube or other applications, connecting to social network services like Facebook or Twitter, text messaging, morning alarm, recording schedules, catching a taxi, etc. This change increases the exposure time to RF-EMR from mobile phones and makes the exposure irregular according to a person’s characteristics of mobile phone use…. Therefore, RF-EMR exposure patterns are becoming more complicated for researchers to anticipate than before.”

 

Another systematic review from 2017 by Carlberg and Hardell found similar results as the recent South Korean study, with a thought-provoking introduction about the weakness of using short-term epidemiological studies to measure long latency chronic illnesses like cancer.  A classic epidemiology paper from 1965, written at the height of the tobacco and lung cancer controversy, cautions making quick assumptions that no clear association means no link, as statistical significance can change dramatically after just a few extra years of exposure to the disease-causing stimulus.

“None of the today's established carcinogens, including tobacco, could have been firmly identified as increasing risk in the first 10 years or so since first exposure.”

 

WHO-sponsored study review finds no link between cell phone use and brain cancer

 Back in May of 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) evaluated the studies published on the link between cell phone radiation and brain cancer (specifically glioma and acoustic neuroma), and classified radiofrequency radiation as a Group 2B “possible human carcinogen”.

Very soon afterward, in June of 2011, the WHO issued a fact sheet stating that “to date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use”.  Issuing a statement that directly contradicted the IARC evaluation, and only a month later, is highly suspect.  Since that time, and with much evidence to the contrary continually being produced in the scientific sphere, the WHO and other government organizations have been strongly emphasizing the complete, definitive absence of a link between cell phones and cancer.

At that time, the WHO also stated that “two international bodies have developed exposure guidelines for workers and the general public… based on a detailed assessment of available scientific evidence.”   These two organizations are the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).

ICNIRP is a private organization based in Germany that selects its own members, and IEEE is the world’s most powerful group of engineers, whose members are employed in companies that produce or use technology that depends on radiofrequency radiation, such as power companies, the telecom industry and military organizations.

In 1998, ICNIRP established wireless radiation exposure guidelines that are based only on thermal (heating) effects from wireless radiation, and ignoring the large body of science showing non-thermal biological effects.  These guidelines have been adopted by most countries in the world, based on the archaic assumption that tissue heating (thermal effects) are the only way that radiation could possibly negatively affect living organisms.  This is commonly referred to by EMF-literate scientists as “the thermal-only paradigm”.

In 2009, they provided an update to their guidelines, stating that the established limits from way back in 1998 are still protective, even from the considerably increased modern day exposure levels.

Most of the WHO Monograph core group, a specialized team responsible for assessing scientific research to inform WHO recommendations, are also members of the ICNIRP, so cannot be considered independent, unbiased researchers.

Joel Moskowitz, PhD, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the School of Public Health, UC Berkeley, stated that in 2019, investigative journalists from eight European countries published 22 articles in major news media that exposed conflicts of interest in this ‘ICNIRP cartel.’  The journalists argue that the cartel promotes the ICNIRP guidelines by conducting biased reviews of the scientific literature that minimize health risks from EMF exposure.  By preserving the ICNIRP exposure guidelines favored by industry, the cartel ensures that the cellular industry will continue to fund their research.

As just one of a series of study reviews commissioned by the WHO, a systematic review specifically focused on human cell phone use and brain cancer was published in August of 2024 in Environmental International.  The study’s highlights state that exposure to RF from mobile phone use likely does not increase the risk of brain cancer or childhood cancer.  The methodology used in this study review has been extensively criticized in the past few months since it was published, including by Joel Moskowitz on his website, SaferEMR.com.

Moskowitz’s criticisms of the WHO study include:

  • crude exposure measures and inadequate follow-up time for the cohort studies
  • they defined “regular cell phone use” as at least one cell phone call weekly, which is very low
  • incorrect methods for dealing with differences in the original studies’ methods and results (heterogeneity), which can skew the overall findings
  • the cumulative call time analyses that did find increased risk of glioma and meningioma with increased call time, but assessed only a small sample size so it was unable to achieve statistical significance

 The language used by the lead study author in a news release reveals their bias:

"This systematic review provides the strongest evidence to date that radio waves from wireless technologies are not a hazard to human health."

 "Overall, the results are very reassuring. They mean that our national and international safety limits are protective. Mobile phones emit low-level radio waves below these safety limits, and there is no evidence exposure to these has an impact on human health."

 "There remains no evidence of any established health effects from exposures related to mobile phones, and that is a good thing."

 In truth, for the past couple decades, substantial disagreement has existed among experts who study wireless radiation.  Unfortunately, these recent WHO study reviews are only going to increase the rift, as the panel of researchers involved in these studies are from the WHO’s own core group, most of whom have significant past or present ties with ICNIRP and other regulatory organizations.

The sad truth is this has become a political battle on the world stage, with the pursuit of money and power at its core, and all of humanity as collateral damage.

The best we can do as this plays out is educate ourselves on the risks of EMFs, protect ourselves, and raise awareness within our community, so that as a species, we can eventually win this battle of humanity’s health over corporate power.

 

 

References:

← Older post

This post copyright ©2020-2023 Blushield USA. All rights reserved.

Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission is strictly prohibited.