Article overplays weight of new report into cell phone mast cancer worries

Comments 4

The Sunday Independent this week ran an article on a new report by a group of scientists claiming that the positioning of cell phone masts in residential areas is linked to incidence of cancer. The article overplayed the evidence.

Ever since cell phone masts started to go up around the world at the end of the last century, people have worried that the radiation the masts transmit might have harmful effects on those who live or work nearby.

Radiation is present everywhere as part of the natural world but studies have shown that exposure to too-high dosages can be linked to a rise in cancer and other health problems.

In a case in England made famous by a book about the understanding of statistics and numbers, residents of the village of Wishaw in the West Midlands in 2003 tore down a mast they believed had caused a rise in the incidence of cancer in the village. (The book concluded the cancer cluster was natural and the mast was likely not the cause.)

New phone masts are controversial

The issue is in the news in South Africa this week because residents of North Riding, on the northern outskirts of Johannesburg, plan to oppose the construction of a cell phone mast close to a pre-school in the neighbourhood.

In its article this weekend (available online only to subscribers), the Sunday Independent gave a boost to the anti-mast campaigners, relaying the findings of a new report that, it said, may give residents of North Riding “a leg to stand on” in opposing the planned mast.

Report based on ‘1800 studies’ urges stricter limits

The report referred to was produced by a group called the Bioinitiative Group, 29 scientists from 10 different countries who have studied the effects of this sort of radiation on human health.

Since they produced an earlier report in 2007, the group said, around 1,800 new studies had found harmful effects on health at exposure levels below those permitted by most countries.

“Roughly, 1,800 new studies have been published in the last five years reporting effects at exposure levels tens to hundreds or thousands of times lower than allowed under safety limits in most countries of the world. Yet, no government has instituted comprehensive reforms,” the report says.

And based on such a large sample of studies, its conclusions – urging governments to intervene to reduce the risk their populations, in particular pregnant women and children, face from continued exposure to radiation – would appear to carry some weight.

Canadian scientists dispute the findings

However, another group of scientists, based at universities in Canada, and calling themselves the ‘EMF & Health’ group, dispute the Bioinitiative group’s findings.

In this criticism of the Bioinitiative group’s report, they claim that the report is the work of “a relatively small group of scientists, lobbyists, and promoters, whose work is not recognised according to established scientific standards”.

The EMF group lists a number of problems they see with the Bioinitiative report but the chief criticism is that the report does not adhere to the principles of random selection of samples, repeatability and peer review. These are the principles, widely recognised in science, that, to be judged credible, trials should seek to ensure an unbiased selection of samples, that it should be possible for trials to be repeated by others and come to the same findings, and that the work should be reviewed by scientific peers.

Put another way, the BioInitiative sample was loaded in favour of studies that supported their theory and the results found were not reproducible.

So who to believe?

The World Health Organisation’s set of guidelines for journalists – and others – assessing the health risks posed by things such as cell phone masts  set out the importance of looking at all such new studies in detail and in context.

As they put it: “All studies, with either positive or negative effects, need to be evaluated and judged on their own merit, and then all together in a weight-of-evidence approach.

And they go on: “It is important to determine how much a set of evidence changes the probability that exposure causes an outcome. Generally, studies must be replicated or be in agreement with similar studies. The evidence for an effect is further strengthened if the results from different types of studies (epidemiology or laboratory) point to the same conclusion“.

To conduct their assessments, expert groups consult comprehensive databases of studies on the field such as the one maintained by the International Committee on Electronic Safety.

And, on that basis, the EMF & Health group lists what it calls “expert reviews and web sites that are operated by credible mainstream scientists and public health officials” whose findings are based on evidence-based science published in reputable peer reviewed journals.

“All of these mainstream scientific organizations arrive at the same conclusion as the European SCENIHR: ‘It is concluded from three independent lines of evidence (epidemiological, animal and in vitro studies) that exposure to RF fields is unlikely to lead to an increase in cancer in humans‘,” the EMF & Health group says.

Certainly, this recent study from the UK Health Protection Agency, released in London in April 2012, offers some reassurance to the residents of North Riding and elsewhere, worried about the claimed health risks of cell phones and cell phone masts.

The key conclusion of the report is that: “The accumulating evidence on cancer risks, notably in relation to mobile phone use, is not definitive, but overall is increasingly in the direction of no material effect of exposure.”

There is little data, the report notes, on risks beyond 15 years from first exposure, but to date, “although a substantial amount of research has been conducted in this area, there is no convincing evidence that RF field exposure below guideline levels causes health effects in adults or children“.

Conclusion

As the best studies note, cell phones are still relatively new devices and little data exists about the possible risks of exposure, over the very long-term, to the radiation they and the cell phone masts transmit.

Given this, and all sorts of other possible factors, there may be reasons for residents to object to construction of masts in their neighbourhood.

But when reporting the risks, we in the media all need to remember where the weight of evidence lies. As the BioInitiative group itself said in 2007: “To a great degree, it is the definition of the standard of evidence used to judge the scientific reports that shapes this debate.”

And as the UK Health Protection Agency report said just last year, and this report notwithstanding, although there has been substantial research into the question over several years, there is, to date, “no convincing evidence” that the exposure to radiation caused by cell phone masts harms the health of children or adults.

Edited by Peter Cunliffe-Jones. Additional research by Anina Mumm

© Copyright Africa Check 2017. You may reproduce this piece or content from it for the purpose of reporting and/or discussing news and current events. This is subject to: Crediting Africa Check in the byline, keeping all hyperlinks to the sources used and adding this sentence at the end of your publication: “This report was written by Africa Check, a non-partisan fact-checking organisation. View the original piece on their website", with a link back to this page.

Comment on this report

Comments 4
  1. By Tunicia Phillips

    My two cents on this article.

    Firstly, while cellphone technology is new, radio frequencies, non-ionising radiation and microwaves are not. The US and UK’s military issued warnings of the effects to exposure as far back as the 1960’s.
    Most service providers will tell you that they are in fact operating under ICNIRPS guidelines for non-ionising radiation exposure. These guidelines do not include long-term exposure and acknowledge the precautionary principle, highlighted by the bio-initiative. If all other reports have been heavily weighed in implicating the telecomms industry, then this one in particular has leaned way too much on the contrary.

    The precautionary principle is simple: When research is inconclusive, and science hasn’t had enough time to do so because the technology is new, then we must still take precaution against possible risks. No harm is not the same as no risks. The tobacco industry took decades to admit that risks were there and quickly had to lift their confident flag when they could no longer pay scientist to lie.

    Telecomms fund their own research and when research is conducted independently, a lot of the time it is criticised and discredited by the industry. We’ve seen this with the asbestos, depleted uranium and tobacco health scandals in our time.

    They cannot now admit that their are health risks as dangerous as cancer, simply because the result will be the biggest global pool of lawsuits in history.

    One more thing: When the WHO classified non-ionising radiation as a carcinogen 2B (possibly cancerous)- the chairing scientist was axed from the panel becuase he was also a director for a Brussels-based lobbying firm for Telecomms.

    To see a publication as credible as this so confidently lean towards doubt of these flagged risks without doing enough research is nothing short of disappointing. I’ve been investigating this issue for over a year and while I can argue point-by-point, paragraph-by-paragraph, I’d rather leave it at this and hope that your team will conduct extensive research into the matter.

    vote
    Reply Report comment
    • By Peter

      Tunicia Phillips your claims are absolute nonsense. The fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone towers are too weak to have any negative health effects. The precautionary principal in this is rubbish. If we waited for concrete data on everything we simply would become paralysed. We cannot ignore the data that we have already collected. Trying to paint this as being like the denials of the tobacco industry is misguided. Those scientists were paid deniers who in many cases weren’t experts in the matters surrounding cigarettes and their effects on human health. It’s easy to resort to some conspiracy that “they” don’t want you to know that still doesn’t shift the burden of proof away from you. Do honestly believe that doctors would put their own families at risk in order to make extra money? Please if you could please cite all the evidence that you have found in your investigations it would most appreciated.

      vote
      Reply Report comment
  2. By Annette Botha

    I agree 100% with Tunicia. Doctors sometimes know not that all. Canada and the Uk are ahead of research on cellphone towers and radiation. They want to erect a tower nearby where I live and what to object it with a bang.

    vote
    Reply Report comment
  3. By Tunicia

    Peter, for you to confidently say so is funny to say the least. Why has the WHO said that the findings are inconclusive? Yet you can confidently say that the fields are too weak? Are you familiar with the bandwidths or frequency ranges of 3G and 4G? Are those also too weak?
    Are you familiar with a term called pulsed modulated frequencies?
    Have you read ICNIRPS guidelines? On page 266 (please get them yourself) It very clearly states that vulnerable groups such as children, Elderly and sick should NOT be exposed.
    Also, please let me know if you can find a scientist that can give you a safe level of microwaves for children. There is NONE. Those “fields” are essentially microwaves. Telecomms doesn’t use that word for obvious reasons. And if that is not enough, ask the telecom company that recently developed a router with a safety setting for pregnant women, Why they did that?

    vote
    Reply Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Africa Check encourages frank, open, inclusive discussion of the topics raised on the website. To ensure the discussion meets these aims we have established some simple House Rules for contributions. Any contributions that violate the rules may be removed by the moderator.

Contributions must:

  • Relate to the topic of the report or post
  • Be written mainly in English

Contributions may not:

  • Contain defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or harassing language or material;
  • Encourage or constitute conduct which is unlawful;
  • Contain material in respect of which another party holds the rights, where such rights have not be cleared by you;
  • Contain personal information about you or others that might put anyone at risk;
  • Contain unsuitable URLs;
  • Constitute junk mail or unauthorised advertising;
  • Be submitted repeatedly as comments on the same report or post;

By making any contribution you agree that, in addition to these House Rules, you shall be bound by Africa Check's Terms and Conditions of use which can be accessed on the website.

*