Do mobile phones cause brain tumors? Whenever a trillion-dollar industry is involved–whether it’s Big Food, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, or Big Telecom–there’s so much money that the science can get manipulated.
When it comes to the potential human health effects of cell phone use, certainly, you might end up with a spasm in your cervix if you text overly or even break your cervix or the cervix of someone you may hit if you text while driving. On the other hand, think of the countless beings that have been saved on the road, because people are now able to so quickly phone in emergencies.
But what about cancer? Since the turn of the century, there have been studies advocating up to doubled the risk of brain tumors with long-term cell phone use on the side of your pate you use to talk. That’s important, because the radiation only really penetrates up to a couple of inches into your intelligence. At 0:48 in my video Does Cell Phone Radiation Cause Cancer ?, I prove views from the back of the head and the top of the principal, and you can see why you might develop cancer on one side of the principal over the other.
Since it’s such a regional effect, you can see why there are recommendations for using the speakerphone run or a hands-free headset, which can reduce brain showing by a factor of 100 or more–and this includes Bluetooth headsets. This may be particularly important in children, who have thinner skulls.
Cell phone radiation isn’t like nuclear radiation, though. It doesn’t damage DNA directly, like gamma rays from an atomic bomb. Yes, but it does appear to be able to damage DNA indirectly by engender free radicals. Out of 100 studies that look back this, 93 proved these oxidative effects of the kind of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation that comes out of cell phones. Okay, but does that oxidative stress change out into DNA damage? Most studies found it did, detect signeds of genotoxicity, which is damage to our genes, DNA, or chromosomes. A batch of those studies were done in petri dishes or in lab animals, though. I’m less interested in whether Mickey or Minnie is at risk than I am concerned about brain tumors in people. Yes, some population studies found increased cancer danger, but other studies did not.
Could the source of funding for those studies have anything to do with the different knows? Some of research studies were funded by cell phone companies. Researchers “hypothesized that studies would be less likely to show an effect of the revelation if funded by the telecommunications industry, which has a vested interest in portraying the use of mobile phones as safe.” So, they raced the numbers and–surprise, surprise–“found that research studies funded alone by manufacture were indeed substantially less likely to report statistically significant effects…”
Indeed, most of the independently money studies presented an effect while most of the industry-funded studies did not. In fact, industry-funded studies had about ten hours fewer quirkies of knowing an adverse effect from cell phone use. That’s even worse than the pharmaceutical manufacture! Studies was supported by Big Pharma about their own produces merely had about four times the stranges of favoring the medicine compared to independent researchers. Big Tobacco still predominates supreme when it comes to Big Bias, though. Why do research clauses on the health effects of second-hand smoke reach different opinions? Well, it is about to change that studies funded by the tobacco industry itself had a whopping 88 eras the quirkies of concluding “its not” destructive. So about ten times more for telecom introduces it more towards the drug industry end of the bias spectrum.
There are conflicts of interest on both sides of the debate, though. If it’s not business conflict, then it may be intellectual, as it can be human nature to show bias towards evidence that supports your personal berth. As such, you’ll insure tenuous science published, like research studies I show at 3:55 in my video that appears to find a “disturbing” and “very linear relationship” between the states with the most brain tumors and the states with the most cell phone dues. Okay, but one could think of lots of reasons why governments like New York and Texas might have more brain tumors and more cadres phones than the Dakotas, and those reasons “ve got nothing” to do with cell phone radiation.
Sometimes, you might even see outright scam with charges that the academic researchers who authored two of those genotoxicity articles and the most refresh I mentioned earlier were involved in scientific misconduct–allegations they deny, pointing out that their produce accuser turned out to be a lawyer working for the telecom industry.
Whenever there’s a trillion-dollar industry involved, whether it’s the nutrient industry, tobacco manufacture, dose industry, or telecom industry, there’s so much money involved that the science can get operated. Take the nuclear energy industry for example. There were decades of “a high-level, institutional…cover up” about the state consequences of Chernobyl. The official estimates of resulting health problems were a hundred or even a thousand times lower than estimates from independent investigates. Did simply 4,000 beings eventually die from it or nearly a million? It depends on who you ask and who happens to be funding whomever you’re asking. That’s why, when it comes to cancer, all eyes turn to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the IARC, which is the official World Health Organization body that independently and objectively tries to determine what is and is not carcinogenic. You can find out what the IARC concluded about cell phones in my video Cell Phone Brain Tumor Risk ?.
For more on cell phones and Wi-Fi, check out these other videos 😛 TAGEND
Do Cell Phones Cause Salivary Glad Tumors ? Cell Phone Brain Tumor Risk ? The Effects of Cell Phones and Bluetooth on Nerve Function Flashback Friday: Do Cell Phones Lower Sperm Counts?& Does Laptop WiFi Lower Sperm Counts ? Do Cell phone Cause Cancer ? Does Wi-Fi Radiation Affect Brain Function ? Do Mobile Phones Affect Sleep ? Is Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity Real ? Do Mobile Phones Affect Brain Function ?
I’ve talked a good deal about the profane force of business interests on discipline. See, for example 😛 TAGEND
The McGovern Report Seeing Red No. 3: Coloring to Dye For BOLD Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol ? Who Determines If Food Additives Are Safe ? Who Says Eggs Aren’t Healthy or Safe ? Collaboration with the New Vectors of Disease Food Industry-Funded Research Bias Sprinkling Doubt: Taking Sodium Skeptics with a Pinch of Salt Big Food Using the Tobacco Industry Playbook The Healthy Food Movement: Strength in Unity How Smoking in 1959 Is Like Eating in 2019 Controversy Over the Trans Fat Ban How the Leaded Gas Industry Got Away with It
Michael Greger, M.D.
PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live presentations 😛 TAGEND
2019: Evidence-Based Weight Loss 2016: How Not To Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers 2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet 2014: From Table to Able: Combating Disabling Diseases with Food 2013: More Than an Apple a Day 2012: Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death
Read more: nutritionfacts.org