Can Cell Phones Cause Cancer? A Look at Recent Studies

We’ve heard it before. “Cell phone radiation causes cancer.”

It seems like the newsflash that keeps on recurring every few years with a wave of headlines. Today is no exception, yet this time there is a difference.

A multi-million dollar government-funded study conducted by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) shows how cell phone radiation can lead to tumor formation. This was never shown before.

The Rising Need for Answers

The urgency for this research has never been greater. Though modern medicine has allowed us to triumph over many ailments, cancer rates are shifting.

Research done at the University of Manchester suggests that in earlier millennia, cancer was incredibly rare. Researchers studied hundreds of mummified remains from ancient Egypt and found only one incidence of cancer. According to professor Rosalie David, this suggests that cancer is largely “a man-made disease, down to pollution and changes to our diet and lifestyle.”

While some attribute rising rates to longer lifespans, this fails to explain the rising rates of cancer in children. In 2016, the National Cancer Institute found that in children 19 and under, cancer rates have increased by 27 percent since 1975. Furthermore, a study published in 2018 found that the incidence of glioblastoma (an aggressive malignant brain tumor) in the United Kingdom has more than doubled from 1995 to 2015.

Cell phones were invented in the ’70s and went to market in the ’80s. By the ’90s, the news was reporting on studies which demonstrated cell phone users developed higher rates of brain cancer not seen in the non-cell phone using population.

A lot of fear and confusion ensued, but public concern eventually died down as no definitive “proof” of how cell phone radiation actually caused cancer was immediately determined.

Experts hesitated to make a judgment. Certainly, there was a consensus that statistical correlation between cell phones use and cancer exists, but the amount of data available for analysis was deemed too limited. There were so few people who actually used cell phones back then, let alone for prolonged periods of time.

Since then, cell phone use proliferated. As data grew, government agencies became cautious.

In 2011, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radio Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields, emitted from cell phones and other wireless devices, as “possibly carcinogenic to humans.“

A panel of 31 experts from 14 countries placed RF radiation in “Group 2B” along other substances that include lead, nickel, and gasoline. Their websites listed numerous qualifiers and cited on-going research.

As Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California at Berkeley put it, “A lot of scientists have come round to the view that radiofrequency radiation is probably carcinogenic because of new research that has emerged since 2011.”

In the last twenty years, numerous studies have been conducted. For the first time though, scientists know how cell phone radiation can alter the living body. They now have their proof from mice subjected to Electromagnetic Radiation.

What the NTP US Government Study Found

Concluding in 2016, a major in-depth peer-reviewed study was conducted by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). More than 2,500 rats were exposed to varying levels of RF radiation – one type of radiation emitted by cell phones.

The subjects were exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) radiation in 10-minute increments for 9 hours a day, using 2G and 3G frequencies and modulations. Exposure levels varied, with the study’s lowest threshold equal to the highest level currently permitted for local tissue exposure to cell phone radiation in humans.

Radiation exposure exhibited a directed dose-response relationship, as in the more radiation rats received the higher amount of rare brain and heart cancer they developed. Specifically, the study found that male rats had higher incidences of malignant schwannoma (a rare type of tumor that grows in the tissue surrounding nerve cells) of the heart.

In rats of both genders, heart tissue damage was also observed, as well as the occurrence of tumors in the brain, prostate gland, liver, and other organs. In female rats, newborns and their mothers had lower body weights when exposed to high levels of RF radiation during pregnancy and lactation.

Tumors were not found in rats not exposed to the radio frequencies.

In NTP’s news release, senior scientist John Bucher said, “We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real and the external experts agreed.”

In the report released alongside the study, researchers noted “Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to [wireless radiation] could have broad implications for public health.”

The study, which cost the US government 25 million dollars and carried out over 10 years, is considered to be accurate and well designed by leading health authorities, is one of the largest and most in-depth analysis of mobile phones and cancers conducted to date.

The NTP findings were further corroborated by scientists at the Ramazzini Institute, who found similar results when they tested 2,448 rats with radio frequency radiation over their lifetimes. The male rats exposed to the highest exposure of radio-frequency radiation also were significantly more likely to develop tumors in Schwann cells in their hearts.

How Cell Phone Radiation Works

Cell phone radiation is “non-ionizing,” which has been presumed safe. Unlike ionizing radiation such as X-Rays, non-ionizing radiation is associated with extremely low energy.

In non-ionizing radiation, there is insufficient energy to break chemical bonds as ions cannot form. Therefore, it was always assumed that the power generated by cell phones and other electronic devices would be too weak to produce heat and could not cause biological effects whatsoever.

This was proven to be wrong. The NTP study demonstrated that biological changes exist regardless of the thermal heating of cells. Even at the highest levels of exposure in the study, body temperatures never rose more than 1 degree Celsius, so the scientists could definitively rule out heating as the sole cause of damage.

“For years, the understanding of the potential risk of radiation from cell phones has been hampered by a lack of good science. This report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is good science….the findings are unexpected; we wouldn’t reasonably expect non-ionizing radiation to cause these tumors. This is a striking example of why serious study is so important in evaluating cancer risk.”

When living cells couple with radiation, the cells behave differently. Cells respond to changes in radiation. Some of the effects can be reactions like the movement of calcium across membranes or the production of free radicals or a change in the expression of genes in a cell. Important proteins can be expressed in places and times and amounts that they shouldn’t be. This can result in a dramatic effect in the function of cells.

This brings into question the current standards we use for safety. Henry Lai of the University of Washington, who has studied the biological effects of EMF emissions, states that “The SAR rating [the current safety standard] itself is not meaningful…What we really need to know is at what level we begin to see biological effects. And there are several published studies suggesting it’s at much lower levels than what the FDA or FCC says is safe.”

Back in the ’90s, biochemist Jerry Phillips conducted Motorola-funded research into the potential health impacts of cell phones. Phillips and his colleagues studied the effects of different RF signals on rats and on cells in a dish while trying to understand the mechanism of action.

According to Phillips, “the most troublesome finding to Motorola at the time is that these radiofrequency signals could interact with living tissues, which is what we saw in the rats [then and again today]“.

As Phillips put it, “Some of these changes are consistent with what’s seen when cells undergo conversion from normal to malignant. These effects vary depending on the nature of the signal, the length of the exposure, and the specifics of the signal itself.”

These changes were seen in the rats exposed in the latest NTP study. Although the researchers acknowledge more data is still needed, this study has been viewed as eye-opening.

As Otis W. Brawley, M.D., American Cancer Society Chief Medical Officer stated “For years, the understanding of the potential risk of radiation from cell phones has been hampered by a lack of good science. This report from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is good science….the findings are unexpected; we wouldn’t reasonably expect non-ionizing radiation to cause these tumors. This is a striking example of why serious study is so important in evaluating cancer risk.”

While the NTP study was conducted on rats, there is evidence to suggest the same effect will occur in humans. This pre-clinical evidence mimics what may be expected to those of us who rely on our wireless devices heavily.

Evidence in Human Studies

The rat study discovery is especially concerning because epidemiological studies have already shown that heavy cell phone users are more likely to develop rare brain tumors in the same kind of cells.

Scientists in Sweden analyzed and pooled the results of two case-controlled studies of cell phone use in relation to the development of glioma, the most common type of malignant brain tumor. The subjects ranged from 20-80 years of age.

The researchers found that both long-term and heavy use of mobile and cordless phones corresponded with a greater risk for developing a malignant brain tumor. On average, the subjects developed glioma within 8 years of first use. Additionally:

• 3G phones appeared to carry a greater risk than older wireless phones.
• Ipsilateral phone use (primarily holding the phone to one ear instead of switching between both) also increased cancer risk.
• The chances for glioma development were highest in those who had started using wireless phones before the age of 20. This is likely because children and adolescents have thinner skulls, smaller heads, and their brains are still developing and thus more susceptible to neurotoxins.

Another relevant study published in 2014 looked for a possible link between vestibular schwannomas (a slow-growing tumor that develops on the vestibular nerve) and cell phone usage.

The results were similar to those of the Swedish survey: the schwannomas in those who used cell phones regularly (defined as at least once a week for 6 or more months) were significantly larger than those found in non-regular users. And within the regular-use group, those who used their phones heavily (20+ minutes of talk time daily) had higher tumor volumes.

Researchers speculate that the thermal energy transferred to tissues near an existing schwannoma may encourage the tumor to grow more quickly.

Protecting Yourself from Cell Phone Radiation

Modern technology is almost unavoidable in today’s age.

As Phillips advises, “People want to believe their technology is safe. I do. I would love to believe it, but I know better.”

Phillips recommends taking steps to avoid potential health hazards; some as simple as avoiding holding his cell phone to his ear as well as texting and using speakerphones. Other tools can be implemented though. His conclusion is simply that the public needs to be informed.

Certainly, current research is building that cell phone radiation is a force not to be taken lightly. Given these findings, many experts suggest applying the "precautionary principle": if an activity raises threats to human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if there isn’t overwhelming scientific evidence to support it.

If this NTP study is to be used as any kind of warning, it is that cell phone radiation and other wireless radiation exposure should not be presumed to be safe and measures should be taken to prevent unnecessary risk.