19 May 2011, 3.06pm AEST

Scaremongering on Today Tonight: the truth about wireless radiation risks

In a recent episode of Channel Seven’s current affairs program Today Tonight, it was claimed that wireless devices in the home – such as cordless phones and routers – can cause a range of negative health effects, including: insomnia, depression, migraines and even cancer. These claims don’t bear scrutiny…

Author

Rodney Croft

Professor of Health Physiology at University of Wollongong

Disclosure Statement

Rodney Croft has consulted to a range of organisations such as Shelharbour City Council, Department of Defence, Comcare and Optus. His employer receives funding from government and non-government organisations for research purposes that he manages. He is affiliated with the International Commission on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (as a Biology Standing Committee member) and the Australian Centre for Radiofrequency Bioeffects Research (as Executive Director).

Our goal is to ensure the content is not compromised in any way. We therefore ask all authors to disclose any potential conflicts of interest before publication.

Licence to republish

We license our articles under Creative Commons — attribution, no derivatives.

Click here to get a copy of this article to republish.

You are free to republish this article, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

You can’t edit our material unless you have the author’s express permission or you are adjusting for relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits, please contact us
You can run the first few lines of the article only, if you say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
You must link to us and include links from our story, as well as our page view counter.
You can put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You can republish individual articles, but you can’t automatically republish all of our articles unless approved by us.
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions in the byline. We prefer “Author Name, Institution” (for example “Bruce Mapstone, CSIRO”).
You have to credit The Conversation and link back to our home page as provided in the HTML.

The full article is available here as HTML.

3688768361_4c5b6fbb51_b — Mobile phones raise body temperature, but only by a tiny margin. AMERICANVIRUS/Flickr

These claims don’t bear scrutiny.

It’s true that we’re swamped with wireless devices. Mobile phones utilise wireless technology, as do baby monitors, Wi-Fi networks, TVs and radios.

One feature that has made such devices particularly useful, and almost inescapable, is that they enable communication via low-powered electromagnetic fields (EMFs) that travel through the air and do not require a permanent connection.

Mobile phones, for instance, are not hindered by the need to have cables connecting them, and can send and receive information from virtually anywhere.

The particular frequency range all such devices use is known as “radiofrequency” (RF), which is different from both the extremely low frequencies (ELFs) that mains power uses and ionising radiation (such as the radiation emitted through nuclear reactions and X-rays).

Can RF harm people?

While ionising radiation contains enough energy to break certain chemical bonds in the body, RF has no such capability.

The only known way that RF can interact (and thus have an effect on) the body is through the heating caused by the movement of particles in your body (numerous other mechanisms have been speculated upon, such as through demodulation of RF fields, but heating is the only mechanism that science has been able to verify).

For example, close to an active mobile phone, your body temperature might increase by 0.1 degrees Celsius. RF oscillations move charged particles in the body, resulting in friction and thus heat. This is how your microwave oven works.

But unlike microwave ovens, which can operate at more than 1000 watts, devices such as cordless phones or wireless routers use very low power levels (less than 0.25 watts) to ensure that adverse heating cannot occur.

For example, numerous expert bodies have evaluated the literature and concluded that as long as RF levels are below those specified in safety standards (in Australia the ARPANSA Radio Protection Standard), no harm occurs.

Such standards take as a starting point the lowest level known to cause “any” possible harm to humans or animals (approximately 100 watts/kg), reduce it by a factor of between 10 and 50, and only allow exposures below those levels.

Even then, many exposures (for example, cordless phone base stations and baby monitors) are hundreds of times lower than those standards. Research shows that, even in a home with numerous RF devices operating simultaneously, typical exposures are well below the ARPANSA Radio Protection Standard.

So why the scare stories?

It’s true many people report being sensitive to RF from devices as mobile phones and base stations, with estimates varying between countries and ranging from about 1.5% of the population in Sweden to 10% in Germany.

But a substantial body of science has so far failed to show any evidence that these complaints are related to RF.

In the laboratory (self-reported) hypersensitive participants have not been able to identify whether an RF field is on or off. Symptoms are only evoked by the participants' belief there is RF exposure, rather than by exposure itself.

Similarly, science has not been able to identify any harmful effects resulting from RF in study participants, regardless of age.

This is why expert committees are unanimous in their view that low-level RF is safe. Science, of course, can never be 100% certain of its conclusions, but a lot is now known. The result? We can be very confident that low-level RF is safe.

Are you convinced by the argument that wireless devices are safe? Why/ why not? Leave your views below.

13 Comments

Enrico Grani

Mr

logged in via email @stop-radiation.com

Score: +7

insightful +
unconstructive -

Dear Professor Rodney Croft,

As you know: The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World Health Organization.

http://www.iarc.fr/

PRESS RELEASE N° 208 31 May 2011

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO / International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B),
based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use.

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

The conclusion by the WHO is in contradiction of what you have written.

As I did state in my earlier post... "However... the truth eventually comes out... as the saying goes"... end quote
- permalink
- •
- 9 months ago
Frans van Velden

logged in via email @dds.nl

Score: +7

insightful +
unconstructive -

According to IARC/WHO radiofrequency radiation can possibly cause tumors. This implicates that non-ionising radiation can possibly cause damage to DNA, and that radiofrequency radiation possibly has non-thermal effects (since mobile phones are unable to cause thermal effects). These implications undermine the reasoning of Rodney Croft.
- permalink
- •
- 9 months ago
dee ver

logged in via email @sympatico.ca

Score: +6

insightful +
unconstructive -

Try to dupe people into complacency by owning the vocabulary and framing: "RF has no such capability" to "break certain chemical bonds", as if that is relevant of necessity. "The only known way that RF can interact [...] through the heating" -- our arbiter of the "known". What about microwave auditory effect? Flat wrong then on this alone, this "authority". This Frey effect hearing is well established, even if industry & abettors think they can get away with calling it non-adverse -- tell that to…
show full comment

Try to dupe people into complacency by owning the vocabulary and framing: "RF has no such capability" to "break certain chemical bonds", as if that is relevant of necessity. "The only known way that RF can interact [...] through the heating" -- our arbiter of the "known". What about microwave auditory effect? Flat wrong then on this alone, this "authority". This Frey effect hearing is well established, even if industry & abettors think they can get away with calling it non-adverse -- tell that to sufferers, now at ever decreasingly lower power levels - no pain in the brain, sonic warning instead! And if their purported "mechanism" for that is an infinitesimal temperature increase, in the desperate effort to assimilate all to thermalism, how can such an infinitesimal increase not have all kinds of other weird effects that are not "known". If "numerous other mechanisms have been speculated upon", is their lack of being "known" now not perhaps rather due to withholding of funding and to other terrible pressures put on researchers whose results have dared to contradict what this author would have you believe? And for all the assurance about (effectively arbitrary) safety factors, it assumes such phenomena as e.g "windows" of bioactivity do not exist. Why assume a simplistic linear relationship? Whispers & shouts can sometimes obscure the message, but with intermediate vocal power it registers with the hearer. Is that so hard to grasp, and that such should be expected to be operative regarding RF bio-effect? And the lab provocations of RF sensitivity are of very dubious worth -- e.g. why not follow such hyper-reactives in their own homes?
- permalink
- •
- 9 months ago
Frans van Velden

logged in via email @dds.nl

Score: +6

insightful +
unconstructive -

Dear Rodney Craft,

check the EMF Handbuch by the Ecolog Institut and the RF Review 16/2009 by the ICNIRP (they advise the WHO). Page 2-11 of the EMF Handbuch shows 6 gremia concluding strong evidence and 8 gremia concluding evidence (1 gremium does not decide) that this high frequency radiation (non thermal) has effects on the central nervous system. And the research mentioned in the RF Review 16/2009 unanimously finds (non thermal) effects on the levels of neurotransmitters. These facts are beyond…
show full comment

Dear Rodney Craft,

check the EMF Handbuch by the Ecolog Institut and the RF Review 16/2009 by the ICNIRP (they advise the WHO). Page 2-11 of the EMF Handbuch shows 6 gremia concluding strong evidence and 8 gremia concluding evidence (1 gremium does not decide) that this high frequency radiation (non thermal) has effects on the central nervous system. And the research mentioned in the RF Review 16/2009 unanimously finds (non thermal) effects on the levels of neurotransmitters. These facts are beyond dispute.

Another fact beyond dispute (the research is easy to replicate) is that red blood cells lump together into rouleaux in the blood vessels of people using a mobile phone. Less transportation of oxygen has negative effects on their bodies.

Check the testimonies of people who suffer from pain and other complaints (like inability to sleep). Remember that self-report is the gold standard of pain. Note that people sleep well again in a cage or ‘mosquito net' providing a 50 decibel reduction of the high frequency radiation. Seriously, you can not push all these testimonies aside.

Check the results of research on mobile phones and cancer tumors. The evidence is growing. Read www.microwavenews.com, the excellent report by Louis Slesin who obeys the principles of journalism. Appendix 2 of the Interphone results and the recent Chinese research show a strong relationship between mobile phones and cancer tumors.

Rodney, your arguments besides the point and incomplete. That wireless devices can be useful has nothing to do with the effects on the central nervous system, the change of levels of neurotransmitters, the lumping of blood cells and the cancer tumor risks. Your sentence ‘expert committees are unanimous in their view that low-level RF is safe' is simply not true. There are many people and experts who do not agree. So, you do not convince me at all.
- permalink
- •
- 9 months ago
1. Stelios A Zinelis
  
  MD
  
  logged in via email @otenet.gr
  
  Score: +8
  
  insightful +
  unconstructive -
  
  With a great interest I read this report and I was very surprised with such comments as: <>
  These statements are not accurate. Many studies have reported effects after the exposure to low level radiation. Many expert bodies do recommend to lower…
  show full comment
  
  With a great interest I read this report and I was very surprised with such comments as: <>
  These statements are not accurate. Many studies have reported effects after the exposure to low level radiation. Many expert bodies do recommend to lower today’s guidelines, in order to protect the public health. The latest been the COUNCIL OF EUROPE, Resolution 1815, 27 May 2011. But also of interest, the ECOLOG REPORT 2000, which was commissioned by two telephone companies was recommending to decrease the exposure to EMF(but was ignored). Βy the term<> I presume the report means clinical-symptomatic effect. In order for this to happen a long time of biochemical changes will have to take place. Therefore, we have to intervene at this asymptomatic period, so the clinical harm will not occur. For example, we treat the high cholesterol to avoid the complications in vascular diseases, we do colonoscopies to remove the asymptomatic polyp so will not become cancer in 5 or so years etc.. We should avoid chronic low level EMF exposure to avoid the clinical effects.
  The past has taught us many lessons for example asbestos. The mining began in 1879. Nineteen years later was reported the dust harmful effects. However, no actions were taking. If a ban was done back in 1965 when the cause for adverse effects was plausible but unproven the estimated of 250,000-400,000 deaths from mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis which will occur the next 35 years in European Union from the past asbestos exposure, would be much different.
  We should apply the precautionary principle, decrease today΄s standards and minimize the human exposure. By this approach we would do more good than harm. What good would it do to the people affected by low EMF and cause lot΄s of suffering in the years to come and at that time we tell them, well in the past we did not know, but we do know today so we΄ll lower the standards and exposure?
  - permalink
  - •
  - 9 months ago
2. Enrico Grani
  
  Mr
  
  logged in via email @stop-radiation.com
  
  Score: +7
  
  insightful +
  unconstructive -
  
  Dear Professor Rodney Croft,
  
  You state > "Mobile phones, for instance, are not hindered by the need to have cables connecting them, and can send and receive information from virtually anywhere".end quote ...
  Statements like this are irrelevant to an article commenting on health effects from mobile and wireless communications, as it does not address health issues and could only be perceived as "sidetracking" to try to re-assure the public that all is OK when clearly it is not the case at all.
  
  In…
  show full comment
  
  Dear Professor Rodney Croft,
  
  You state > "Mobile phones, for instance, are not hindered by the need to have cables connecting them, and can send and receive information from virtually anywhere".end quote ...
  Statements like this are irrelevant to an article commenting on health effects from mobile and wireless communications, as it does not address health issues and could only be perceived as "sidetracking" to try to re-assure the public that all is OK when clearly it is not the case at all.
  
  In order for transparency to prevail in science it is paramount: all conflicts of interest "perceived or otherwise be declared in full" anything less could mislead the public who may rely on commentary from figures in authority ...
  
  Many bold claims you do make, which do not hold water to people who have looked at many studies, both from industry and independent, which are in contradiction to what you have written.
  
  "The Interphone Study" in which 13 countries participated (including Australia) which the results were stalled for 5 years (and are considered to be an "underestimation") ... points out that a cellphone user who uses a cellphone for more than 27 minutes a day for 10 years = (1640 hours), has a significant elevated risk of getting brain cancer by 40% ... The study did not include all brain tumour types, considered a "regular user" as a person who uses a cellphone "once a week" , did not include the statistics from those who died from their brain tumour in the study. Interphone researchers admit "selection bias". Is there any wonder that this caused divisions between ethical scientists. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/our_journals/ije/press_releases/freepdf/dyq079.pdf
  
  Appendix 1 and 2 of the Interphone Study were not included in the above study as the risks were not favourable. Not to mention the fact also that no children have been included in the Interphone study for obvious ethical reasons because we cannot experiment on them, but it is OK to perform an experiment on them without any controls, and by misleading information. The question to ask is Qui Bono? because it definitely is not the children as their cells rapidly divide in what now is an inescapable. artificial man-made RF environment. http://vimeo.com/8109152 Interphone Study Design Flaws.
  
  The recent study by Nora Volkow et al, Effects of Cell Phone Radiofrequency Signal Exposure on Brain Glucose Metabolism, demonstrated increased glucose metabolism on the same side of the brain the cellphone was used. "50-minute cell phone exposure was associated with increased brain glucose metabolism in the region closest to the antenna" ....
  http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/8/808.full?ijkey=6/BAus3jsC2OA&keytype=ref&siteid=amajnls
  
  As you know, glucose is fuel for the brain, "personally I do not think that increased glucose metabolism in the brain of children can be perceived as safe, nor normal, due to the fact the child is still developing neurological pathways".
  
  If we look at the scientific research from Allan H. Frey, an American neuroscientist
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frey_effect
  
  William Ross Adey, M.D. Professor of Anatomy and Physiology http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/inmemoriam/williamrossadey.htm
  
  Doctor Stan Barnett formerly from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization (CSIRO) sacked Stan Barnett and ended CSIRO’s involvement in non-ionizing radiation. His documents are of substantial worth.
  
  I could cite many scientific documents showing health harm from industry and independent researchers, and the "weight of evidence" from the scientific papers would squash me like a pancake, as I am a but a slightly built fellow.
  
  Professor Rodney Croft, You do not convince me at all, but are you, convinced, because in your writings and media interviews it appears that you are not (that is my opinion)... However... the truth eventually comes out... as the saying goes...
  - permalink
  - •
  - 9 months ago
Stelios A Zinelis

MD

logged in via email @otenet.gr

Score: +5

insightful +
unconstructive -

With a great interest I read this report and I was very surprised with such comments as: <>
These statements are not accurate. Many studies have reported effects after the exposure to low level radiation. Many expert bodies do recommend to lower…
show full comment

With a great interest I read this report and I was very surprised with such comments as: <>
These statements are not accurate. Many studies have reported effects after the exposure to low level radiation. Many expert bodies do recommend to lower today’s guidelines, in order to protect the public health. The latest been the COUNCIL OF EUROPE, Resolution 1815, 27 May 2011. But also of interest, the ECOLOG REPORT 2000, which was commissioned by two telephone companies was recommending to decrease the exposure to EMF(but was ignored). Βy the term<> I presume the report means clinical-symptomatic effect. In order for this to happen a long time of biochemical changes will have to take place. Therefore, we have to intervene at this asymptomatic period, so the clinical harm will not occur. For example, we treat the high cholesterol to avoid the complications in vascular diseases, we do colonoscopies to remove the asymptomatic polyp so will not become cancer in 5 or so years etc.. We should avoid chronic low level EMF exposure to avoid the clinical effects.
The past has taught us many lessons for example asbestos. The mining began in 1879. Nineteen years later was reported the dust harmful effects. However, no actions were taking. If a ban was done back in 1965 when the cause for adverse effects was plausible but unproven the estimated of 250,000-400,000 deaths from mesothelioma, lung cancer and asbestosis which will occur the next 35 years in European Union from the past asbestos exposure, would be much different.
We should apply the precautionary principle, decrease today΄s standards and minimize the human exposure. By this approach we would do more good than harm. What good would it do to the people affected by low EMF and cause lot΄s of suffering in the years to come and at that time we tell them, well in the past we did not know, but we do know today so we΄ll lower the standards and exposure?
- permalink
- •
- 9 months ago
Rinat Strahlhofer

logged in via Facebook

Score: +4

insightful +
unconstructive -

We can be very confident that low-level RF is safe??? He obviously hasn't done his research! Especially since he is using the dangerous word "safe" in the context of radiation.

In 2007, the Bioinitiative working group released a 650-page report citing more than 2,000 studies that detail the toxic effects of electromagnetic radiation ranging from DNA damage and immune system dysfunction to brain cancers and childhood cancers like leukemia.

"Every single study of brain tumors that looks at 10 or more years of use shows an increased risk of brain cancer," said Cindy Sage, MA, coeditor of the Bioinitiative report.

Electromagnetic fields cause DNA damage and inhibit DNA repair- an undisputed cause of cancer.

Mobile phone radiation has been shown to cause the blood-brain barrier (BBB) to leak; the BBB protects the brain from many molecules that are toxic to the brain.

Oh and need I mention He consults for OPTUS?
- permalink
- •
- 9 months ago
1. Donald Maisch
  
  Phd.
  
  Score: +6
  
  insightful +
  unconstructive -
  
  In order to better understand the viewpoint of Croft's ACRBR I recommend a paper I wrote last year:
  
  http://www.pandora-foundation.eu/downloads/maisch-don_a-machiavellian-spin_2011.pdf
  - permalink
  - •
  - 9 months ago
Jack Verbeek

Retail Specialist

logged in via email @optusnet.com.au

Score: +4

insightful +
unconstructive -

Shouldn't it be mandatory that Industry Spokespeople declare their interests? Last time I checked the ACRBR were in partnership with Telstra.
- permalink
- •
- 9 months ago
Guido Tresoldi

logged in via Facebook

Score:

insightful +
unconstructive -

However when you have high profile brain surgeons such as Dr. Charlie Teo warning stating that there is a possibility that radiation from these devices could be harmful (http://www.news.com.au/technology/brain-surgeon-dr-charlie-teo-warns-against-mobiles-home-appliances/story-e6frfro0-1225791947213) people will take notice whether right or not.
- permalink
- •
- 9 months ago
1. Tasio Sclavenitis
  
  Mr
  
  logged in via email @live.com.au
  
  Score: +4
  
  insightful +
  unconstructive -
  
  I have read a number of papers on this topic, mostly written by neurosurgeons. They disagree with Professor Croft's position as outlined in this preceding article. Dr. Teo as mentioned by Mr Tresoldi co authored a paper on this subject in 2009. It is available here: http://www.brain-surgery.us/KhuranaSurgNeurol.pdf?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCB-4VXT0R8-7&_user=2554202&_coverDate=03%2F27%2F2009&_alid=892638615&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5166&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=5&_acct=C000057830&_version…
  show full comment
  
  I have read a number of papers on this topic, mostly written by neurosurgeons. They disagree with Professor Croft's position as outlined in this preceding article. Dr. Teo as mentioned by Mr Tresoldi co authored a paper on this subject in 2009. It is available here: http://www.brain-surgery.us/KhuranaSurgNeurol.pdf?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6TCB-4VXT0R8-7&_user=2554202&_coverDate=03%2F27%2F2009&_alid=892638615&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=5166&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=5&_acct=C000057830&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=2554202&md5=6e0212c224d80550663732fc179ebcda
  If I may quote from the article: "The results indicate that using a cell phone for ≥10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma."
  And if I may quote Dr Khurana, "...unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps to openly acknowledge and intervene in this situation, even while waiting definitive confirmation by large and well-constructed multi-centre studies worldwide, malignant brain tumour incidence and its associated death rate will be observed globally to rise within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to meaningfully intervene, especially for those who are currently children and young adults."
  - permalink
  - •
  - 9 months ago
Mary Giacoletti

logged in via Facebook

Score: -5

insightful +
unconstructive -

Of greater benefit to humanity and the planet would be energy and concern directed at the indisputable pollutants (Wood smoke, diesel emissions) that are pervasive and persistent, far outweighing the purported hazards of radio frequency.
- permalink
- •
- 7 months ago

Hot Topics

Scaremongering on Today Tonight: the truth about wireless radiation risks

Can RF harm people?

So why the scare stories?

13 Comments

Enrico Grani

Frans van Velden

dee ver

Frans van Velden

Stelios A Zinelis

Enrico Grani

Stelios A Zinelis

Rinat Strahlhofer

Donald Maisch

Jack Verbeek

Guido Tresoldi

Tasio Sclavenitis

Mary Giacoletti

Sections

Founding Partners

Strategic Partners

About us

Hot Topics

Can RF harm people?

So why the scare stories?

Related articles

Sections

Founding Partners

Strategic Partners

About us