Lloyd Morgan's Column
[Return to column index]
Cellphone Industry's Propaganda: Cellphones Cannot Possibly Cause Brain Tumors
This is a lead-in column for the main commentary on
the interphone flaws that can be found here.
A recent news report
headlined "Cell Phone Radiation Triggers Measurable Brain Cell Changes in Mere
Minutes" was sent to me. It was an Israeli study showing damage to brain cells
in as little as 10 minutes when the brain cells were exposed to cellphone
radiation. The cellphone industry maintains that any cellular damage from
exposure to cellphone radiation is impossible.
The cellphone industry maintains that while ionizing radiation (e.g., X-rays)
does cause DNA damage, cellphones' non-ionizing radiation cannot cause cellular
damage except when the power of microwave radiation is at a level to heat the
body's cells. This view assumes the only possibility of cellular damage is due
to heating. And, it assumes that the cause of any kind of cellular damage is
already known. Such a view is fundamentally anti-scientific, but it makes a
good sound bite.
Without a doubt, ionizing radiation causes cell damage. Yet what is not
generally understood is that 85% of cell damage is indirect damage. Yes, 15% of
ionizing radiation directly breaks DNA bounds. However, ionizing radiation also
creates free radicals within the cell's cytoplasm. These free radicals, very
close to DNA, cause 85% of the damage. Cellphone radiation has been shown to
create free radicals and/or lengthen the lifetime of free radicals.
Safety guidelines, developed by industry, assume that health effects from the
cellphone microwaves radiation can only occur when significant heating of body
tissue occurs (as we see in the far more powerful microwave oven radiation used
to cook food). This is blatantly wrong (i.e., it is a lie).
The single most convincing data this is a lie is the therapeutic use of
non-thermal, non-ionizing radiation (non-thermal means there is no heating).
Since the 1970s non-thermal, non-ionizing pulsed EMFs have been use to heal bone
fractures. When a broken bone does not knit together after being in a cast for
about 8-weeks, the standard therapy is to use pulsed EMFs. This therapy is very
close to 100% effective.
The pulses were not randomly tried until something worked. They were designed
to be resonant with bone cell processes. In essence these pulses stimulate bone
cell growth. There is substantial literature explaining the mechanism at the
We all know that UV light causes skin cancer. UV light is non-ionizing
radiation. According to industry's spin machine, it is impossible for
non-ionizing radiation to cause DNA damage. Dr. Doug Marsh at Yale Medical
School has shown that UV light does cause DNA breaks because non-ionizing UV
light has a quantum mechanical resonance with the DNA bonds.
The Israeli study showing brain cell damage is one of many studies that
challenge the entire basis on which cellphone industry's presumption of safety
has been based. There are many more studies of non-thermal, non-ionizing
radiation that show damaging effects on cells. Often the cellphone industry's
response to such data is to say it cannot be true because there is "no known
mechanism" to explain this data.
In science data is gospel. "No know mechanism" is another sound bite created
by industry to deny the validity of the data. While, data itself can be, and
should be, challenged, if it meets the challenges, then science acknowledges the
validity of the data.
An example of a data challenge is where the tolerance (accuracy) of the data
is insufficient to justify reported findings. Another challenge is where there
are unperceived contaminations that distorts the data (e.g., the earth's
magnetic field was not considered). It is for this reason that exact replication
of the experiment is expected. The goal of such replication experiments is to
produce the same results as the original experiment. This too is part of the
One of industry's deceits is to "improve" the experiment (which is not the
same experiment at all) and this improved experiment does not replicate the
original data. Are we surprised?
It is now clear: cellphone radiation causes brain tumors. Even the industry
funded Interphone studies have found a risk of brain tumors. This risk has been
consistently found when the cellphone has been used for 10 or more years and the
tumor is on the same side of the head where the cellphone was held. Of the 4
published Interphone studies that report data for 10 or more years, all 4 have
found a risk of brain tumors.
Studies, independent of cellphone industry funding, with 10 or more years of
exposure time have consistently found higher risks of brain tumors than the
Interphone studies have. Why higher risks? It is because the Interphone study
protocol has at least 6 flaws, each of which results in an underestimation of
brain tumor risk. Yet, in spite of the 6 design flaws that underestimate the
risk of brain tumors, the Interphone studies still find a risk of brain tumors.
Perhaps if these flaws did not exist they would find the same elevated risks as
the industry independent studies have found? Or, could it be that the Interphone
protocol was designed to not find any risk?