We use cookies on our websites. Information about cookies and how you can object to the use of cookies at any time or end their use can be found in our privacy policy.

No, there's no evidence that smartphones cause cancer

No, there's no evidence that smartphones cause cancer

The news went unnoticed between the release of Samsung's new models and concerns about the Mobile World Congress (MWC) in Barcelona. However, this information is of considerable importance in terms of public health, as it reopens the debate on the danger of smartphones. The FDA (the U.S. Food & Drugs Administration) recently issued a scientific report stating that mobile phones are not carcinogenic.

The debate over smartphones and their dangerousness for consumers is concomitant with the evolution of mobile phone usage around the world. The articles are numerous and the World Health Organization (WHO) had also tried to warn several times about the risks associated with too much exposure to the airwaves. In this climate of doubt and suspicion, the FDA has issued a scientific report that is supposed to reassure more and more users.

To do this, it conducted a scientific study over a period of 11 years (between 2008 and 2019) in which it carried out 125 experiments on animals and 75 different types of tests on humans. It concluded that "there is no consistent pattern" of cause and effect between radioelectric radiation and tumours and cancers.

Digital Storm shutterstock 485508181
People are worried about the health implications of 5G. / © Digital Storm / Shutterstock.com

Beyond the legitimate questions about the transparency of this study, our colleagues at the MIT Technology Review are expressing doubts as scientists about the nature of the experiments carried out on animals. According to them, one cannot compare rats and humans in the laboratory when analyzing a consumer product, because obviously rats do not interact with this type of object.

At no time did the FDA's work ever replicate real smartphone use in the laboratory, as human experiments focused on questioning and observational data. The framework of the rat examinations consisted of seeing how the phones irradiated the rat's entire body since the rat was placed in a passive situation next to the mobile phones. The problem with this type of methodology is that rats were therefore irradiated at much higher levels than humans.

The U.S. administration's study also looked at 5G. Faced with the fear of waves at frequencies much higher than 4G, the report concludes that humans can be safely exposed to radiation between 300 kilohertz and 100 gigahertz, with 5G currently ranging from 25.250 GHz to less than 100 GHz. The FDA even insists several times in its text that 5G is safe:

Existing epidemiological data indicate that if a risk exists, it is extremely low compared to the natural incidence of the disease and known controllable risk factors.

That said, the report recommends that more experimental and laboratory research be conducted to study more precisely those people who are more susceptible to cancer-causing tumors. And yet, the fears will not go away. The protests will continue. In this age of misinformation and fake news, we need these types of studies to be recognized, in my opinion.

What do you think of this report? Are you worried about the health impacts of 5G and mobile phones in general? Share your opinions in the comments section below.

Recommended articles

2 comments

Write new comment:
All changes will be saved. No drafts are saved when editing
Write new comment:
All changes will be saved. No drafts are saved when editing

  • storm 1 month ago Link to comment

    To digital disconnect

    Sounds more like spam than an actual substantive rebuttal.


  • As (toxic) status quo propaganda documents go, this one is relatively sophisticated, if not what it purports to be (peer-reviewed, respectable scientific research). So sad to see.

    How many millions must die before the elite rediscover what it is to 'serve and protect'?

    See 'Physicians for Safe Technology' for info.