Risk Analysis: Cellphone radiation might do more than cause cancer!


There is plenty of literature and published work on the genetic toxicology (or lack thereof) of radiofrequency radiation, most findings are concerned with microwave ovens and radar equipment. Several epidemiological studies linking proximity to cellphone towers and cancer have gripped sensationalist media, but the findings are not statistically robust and inconsistent.

Due to public concern, cellphone radiation safety is somewhat of a hot topic to researchers; despite numerous publications attest to cell phone safety and strongly suggest RF radiation does not induce genetic damage in vivo and in vitro, other investigations present quite alarming data. Notably Repacholi et al. published in Radiation Research in 1997 that exposure to radiofrequency radiation is associated with increased lymphoma incidence in mice.


Wolf et al. from Tel-Aviv University in 2004 conducted an epidemiologic assessment of how cancer incidence relates to living proximity.

[Rate] of cancers was compared both with the rate of 31 cases per 10,000 per year in the general population and the 2/1222 rate recorded in the nearby clinic (area B). Relative cancer rates for females were 10.5 for area A, 0.6 for area B and 1 for the whole town of Netanya. Cancer incidence of women in area A was thus significantly higher (p<0.0001) compared with that of area B and the whole city.

They concluded that there is a statistically significant relationship between cancer incidence and living proximity to cellphone towers. Those who lived near the cell phone towers experienced 4.15 times more cases than did the entire population.


Unfortunately, cancer may not be our only concern. A recent study at Brookhaven National Laboratory found using PET scans that cell phone radiation increases brain glucose metabolism.

Specifically, the SPM comparisons on the absolute metabolic measures showed significant increases (35.7 vs 33.3 μmol/100 g per minute for the on vs off conditions, respectively; mean difference, 2.4 [95% CI, 0.67-4.2]; P = .004) in a region that included the right orbitofrontal cortex (BA 11/47) and the lower part of the right superior temporal gyrus (BA 38).


Methodology was robust, as the cellphone proxy to produce radiation was designed using records from cell phone companies.

 The cellular band was active, with a frequency of 837.8 MHz. This frequency was monitored with a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz. Activation of the cell phone for the experimental period was also corroborated.


Source 1, 2, 3, 4, 5


Pastry Chef (https://butterhub.org), software engineer (http://jamesding.org), and fitness enthusiast.

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Lucrecia Sollock says:

    The microwave oven with a lot of trials from the beginning came up with one that outstands beyond expectations. The creation of the microwave propped up without intent. Incidental in its start, it had soared its way to global popularity because of a series of iterative regressions, discarding previous trials in production stages; bridging towards the latest usage-input, durability, and design.,`’-

    See you real soon

Leave a Reply

Read more:
Concerning Ethnic Differences of Testosterone in Men

If you live in a diverse country, then you have probably noticed the variations in the body structure between ethnic...

Optimize how much coffee you drink!

More frequently (especially after long flights) I find myself heading to the break room for a pick-me-up, but more and more...

Mermaids exist! (but are very rare)

v The medical term is sirenomelia, undoubtedly sharing some linguistic root with sirens from Greek epic poems. Sirenomelia, also informally...

Nexium vs Prilosec! Is there really a difference?

AstraZenica's a monster of a pharmaceutical company. If you saw our last posts (here and here) on the drugs most...