SESSION 2

2 Radio Signals:
Health Research
Introduction to IARC
• International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is part of the World
Health Organization.
• IARC’s Mission: cancer research for cancer prevention

2
IARC Monographs Program
• The IARC Monographs identify environmental factors that can increase the
risk of human cancer.

• National health agencies can use this information as scientific support for
their actions to prevent exposure to potential carcinogens.

3
IARC Monographs
‘A cancer hazard is an agent that is capable of causing cancer under some
circumstances, while a cancer risk is an estimate of the carcinogenic effects
expected from exposure to a cancer hazard.’

‘Monographs identify cancer hazards even when risks are very low at current
exposure levels, because new uses or unforeseen exposures could engender
risks that are significantly higher.’

Agents are selected for review on the basis of two main criteria:

A. There is evidence of human exposure, and

B. There is some evidence or suspicion of carcinogenicity

4
IARC classification framework
Classification Groups
1 – established.
2A – probably.
2B – possibly.
3 – unclassifiable.
4 – probably not.

5
IARC classification framework
Classification Groups

1 – established. Animal
2A – probably.
2B – possibly.
3 – unclassifiable. Sufficient Limited Inadequate Absence
4 – probably not.
Sufficient 1 1 1 1
2A 2B 2B 2B
Limited
Human

(1) (2A) (2A) (2A)

2B 3 3 3
Inadequate
(1, 2A, 3) (2B) (4)
3 3 3 4
Absence
(1)

6
IARC classification process — RF EMF

From 24-31 May 2011, an IARC Working Group conducted a review of the
potential cancer hazard from radio signals (including mobile phones).

Assessed evidence related to:

• Occupational exposures to radar and to microwaves

• Environmental exposures associated with wireless telecommunication
• Personal exposures associated with the use of wireless telephones

Evidence was evaluated under the headings:

• Exposure data
• Studies of cancer in humans (epidemiological)
• Studies of cancer in animals
• Mechanistic and other relevant data

7
IARC classification — evidence

Epidemiology Limited

• INTERPHONE
• Swedish research group Possible (2B)
• Danish cohort and time trend data

Animal data Limited

• More than 40 rodent studies

Mechanistic evidence Weak

Overall conclusion:
‘…limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to
draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental
exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate.’

8
INTERPHONE – combined results

• glioma
• meningioma

Adapted from The INTERPHONE Study Group, 2010

9
Animal studies of RF and cancer

Possible bias. Good design. Unknown.

Health Council of the Netherlands, 2014

10
IARC RF Monograph

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ http://www.gsma.com/health

11
IARC classification — Overall evaluation for
RF EMF
Classification Groups
1 – established. Animal
2A – probably.
2B – possibly.
3 – unclassifiable. Sufficient Limited Inadequate Absence
4 – probably not.
Sufficient 1 1 1 1
2A 2B 2B 2B
Limited
Human

(1) (2A) (2A) (2A)

2B 3 3 3
Inadequate
(1, 2A, 3) (2B) (4)
3 3 3 4
Absence
(1)

12
IARC classification for RF — May 2011

• ‘…The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we
need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk.’

• ‘…it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term,

heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is
important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free
devices or texting.’
http://monographs.iarc.fr http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/2012/swinburne2011.php

13
IARC classification for RF — May 2011
IARC Classification Examples of Agents

Carcinogenic to humans (107) Asbestos

(usually based on strong evidence of Alcoholic beverages Classification based on
carcinogenicity in humans) Benzene strength of the evidence
Mustard gas for a cancer hazard not
Radon gas
size of risk to humans.
Solar radiation
Tobacco (smoked and smokeless)
X-rays and Gamma
Probably carcinogenic to humans (59) Creosotes
(usually based on strong evidence of Diesel engine exhaust
carcinogenicity in animals) Formaldehyde
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
Possibly carcinogenic to humans (267) RF fields
(usually based on evidence in humans (group 3 – unclassifiable, June 2016) Coffee
which is considered credible. but for which Gasoline engine exhaust
other explanations could not be ruled out) Pickled vegetables
ELF magnetic fields
Styrene

WHO, 2014

14
Responses to the IARC classification
American Cancer Society

• ‘…The bottom line is the evidence is enough to warrant concern, but it is not conclusive.’

Cancer Council of Australia

• ‘…While we need to continue researching the possible link between mobile phones and cancer, it is
important to remind people there are many more established cancer risk factors that we can take
action every day. Strong action on clear cancer risks like tobacco, alcohol, excessive UV exposure
and obesity remain a priority.’

Health Protection Agency (UK)

• ‘…there is no clear scientific evidence of a cancer risk from exposure to radiofrequencies at levels
below international guidelines but the possibility remains...’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LjmnMTLPNw

15
IARC classification for RF — October 2014

• ‘…To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused
by mobile phone use...’
• ‘…IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly
carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal
association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding
cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.’
• ‘In addition to using "hands-free" devices, which keep mobile phones away
from the head and body during phone calls, exposure is also reduced by
limiting the number and length of calls…’
WHO fact sheet 193, October 2014

16
US brain cancer and mobile subscriber trends

A. Number of wireless
subscribers in the
United States, 1984–
2006.

B. Age-adjusted
incidence of brain
cancer (2000
population standard),
SEER 9, 1984–2006.

Inskip et al, 2010

17
 Brain cancer trends
versus case control
studies
• Observed rates incompatible with
large risk increases reported in
some Swedish studies.

• Observed rates could be

compatible with modest risk
increases reported by
INTERPHONE.

Little et al, 2012

18
Epidemiology — current research

International cohort
= 290,000

Case control studies — children/adolescents

• CEFALO — 5 countries, no increased risk found (2011)
• MOBI-Kids — 13 countries, recruitment started in 2010

19
Mobile networks

20
Compliance zones near to the antennas
Public Limit Worker Limit

Distance x 2
Exposure ÷ 4

<1% of Limit

Exposure reduces rapidly with increased distance

21
 Mobile networks levels similar to other
radio sources

100
90
80
70
60
50
40 ICNIRP (100%)
30 Level (% ICNIRP)
20
9.22
10 3.93
0.06 0.01 0.41
0
Average Baby monitors Average WLAN access DECT cordless
urban, TV and (20 cm) urban, base point (20 cm) phone (20 cm)
radio stations

Based on Valberg et al., 2007

22
 Epidemiology —
broadcast transmitters
• Ecological studies of broadcast
transmitters Australia, Switzerland,
UK, USA
• Case-control studies of broadcast
transmitters in South Korea and
Germany
• No hazards found among
populations living near high-power
broadcast transmitters
• Investigations of reported illness
clusters
Hocking et al., 1996. ‘…it is expected that possible cancer clusters
Ha et al, 2007. will occur near base stations merely by
Schuz et al., 2008.
Hauri et al, 2014.
chance.’ – WHO (2006)

23
Epidemiology — base stations

National study
• 6,985 subjects, 76,890 base-station antennas

Assessed mother’s exposure during pregnancy

• Distance, base-station power, modelled power density

‘There is no association between risk of early childhood cancers and estimates of the mother’s
exposure to mobile phone base stations during pregnancy.’

Elliott et al., 2010

24
Base stations — systematic review

• ‘…our review does not indicate an association between any health outcome
and radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure...’
• Evidence is strong for absence of short-term acute effects
• Evidence is weaker for long-term exposures and children

25
WHO — wireless networks (May 2006)

• ‘…RF exposures from base stations…lower or comparable to RF exposures

from radio or television broadcast transmitters.’
• ‘…no adverse short- or long-term health effects have been shown to occur
from the RF signals produced by base stations...’
• ‘Considering the very low exposure levels and research results collected to
date, there is no convincing scientific evidence that the weak RF signals from
base stations and wireless networks cause adverse health effects.’
WHO fact sheet 304, May 2006

26
Research: electrohypersensitivity

• 46 provocation studies, 1175 ‘…The symptoms are certainly

• IEI-EMF volunteers
• Symptoms not caused by EMF
‘…support the role of the nocebo effect in
triggering acute symptoms in IEI-EMF sufferers.’
Rubin et al., 2010
real…there is no scientific basis to
link EHS symptoms to EMF
exposure. Further, EHS is not a
medical diagnosis, nor is it clear that
it represents a single medical
problem.’

27
Children and radio signals

• ICNIRP levels are designed to be protective for all persons against all
established hazards
• Health Council Netherlands:
'There is no scientific evidence for a negative influence of exposure to electromagnetic field of
mobile telephones, base station antennas or Wi-Fi equipment on the development and functioning of
the brain and on health in children.’
• Phone compliance tests are conservative
• Some governments recommend that children should reduce their exposures
in case there are unknown risks
• The WHO does not advise particular measures for children

Health Council of the Netherlands, 2011.

WHO EMF Project

28
Science timeline (tentative)

WHO - RF

2017

ICNIRP 2009 IARC 2013 WHO 2018? ICNIRP 2017/2018

(Risk Evaluation) (Review limits)

29
Reliable sources of information

www.who.int/emf www.icnirp.org www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/emf

www.gsma.com/health www.emf-portal.de

30
WHO – September 2013

• While an increased risk of brain tumours from the use of mobile phones is not
established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for
mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further
research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk.’
• ‘Studies to date provide no indication that environmental exposure to RF
fields, such as from base stations, increases the risk of cancer or any other
disease.’

31
Established risk

32
Summary — Radio signals:

Sources and Health Research

In this section we have:

• Learned about electromagnetic fields

• Learned some basic formulas that describe electromagnetic fields
• Learned how radio frequency signals interact with the body
• Learned about the established and controversial health hazards
• Identified reliable sources of information on the subject of health concerns

33
2 Group discussion
1. Can you explain the IARC classification to a
layperson?
2. What sources would you draw on to
present the case for no need for concern
about radio signals? What factors would
you use to make the decision about which
information to include?
3. Crtitque the IARC and discuss where it
meets expectations and where it fall short.
You have now reached
the end of this session