A new UC Berkeley research study draws a strong link between radiation emitted by cellphones and tumors, particularly in the brain.
Researchers took a comprehensive look at statistical findings from 46 different studies around the globe and found that the use of a cell phone for more than 1,000 hours, or about 17 minutes a day over a ten year period, increased the risk of tumors by 60 percent.
Researchers also pointed to findings that showed cell phone use for 10 or more years doubled the risk of brain tumors.
Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health with the UC Berkeley School of Public Health conducted the research in partnership with Korea’s National Cancer Center, and Seoul National University. Their analysis took a comprehensive look at statistical findings from case control studies from 16 countries including the U.S., Sweden, United Kingdom, Japan, Korea, and New Zealand.
Health experts said cell phones should not be held in a pocket, bra, or belt holster, as a phone’s antenna tries to stay connected with a cell tower whenever it’s on, emitting radio frequency (RF) energy even when not in use.
When on a call, experts advised avoid holding the phone up to your head and instead use the speaker feature or a headset.
Experts also said you should reduce or avoid use of your phone when there’s only one or two bars displayed showing the strength of connectivity. “Cell phones put out more RF energy to connect with cell towers when the signal is weak,” health officials noted.
That’s also true when using a mobile device in a fast-moving car, bus, or train because the phone emits more RF energy to maintain connections to avoid dropping calls as it switches connections from cell tower to cell tower.
Ultimately, when it comes to cell phones, “distance is your friend,” Moskowitz said. “Keeping your cellphone 10 inches away from your body, as compared to one-tenth of an inch, results in a 10,000-fold reduction in exposure. So, keep your phone away from your head and body,” he advised.
MacDailyNews Take: This research received no external funding. The authors have declared no conflict of interest. The full study is here: Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Tumors: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Do not spend long amounts of time with any cellphone up against your head or body. Use the speaker function (like they often do on reality TV) or your AirPods (or AirPods wannabes), keeping the cellphone away from your head.
“Thank God, we here at MacDailyNews, hardly ever use our cellphones to make phone calls at all, much less have them pressed up against our skulls. In fact, we’ve probably taken less than 100 calls since iPhone was introduced in 2007 and we can’t remember the last cellphone call we had that lasted more than a couple of minutes. We almost always use our iPhones on Wi-Fi and for data (browsing, texting, mail, etc.), not voice over cellular — hopefully Wi-Fi is safe or we’re all in big trouble!”
SEE ALSO:
• Health officials: Cellphone radiation could increase risk for brain cancer and tumors, low sperm count, headaches, impaired memory, hearing, and sleep – December 15, 2017
• ‘Game-changing’ study links cellphone radiation to cancer – May 27, 2016
• Study claims cellphone radiation can cause cancer – July 31, 2015
• U.S. watchdog calls for regulators to review of cell phone radiation rules – August 8, 2012
• FCC’s Genachowski looks to open new inquiry into cellphone radiation emissions – June 16, 2012
• New research doubts link between cellphones and cancer – July 5, 2011
Agreed with MDN. I make a ‘phone call’ about once a week. 😐
Nothing from Berkley can be trusted.
They’re the #2 engineering program in the US. You must have a very low IQ.
Hal has repeatedly confirmed his low double-digit IQ via his frequent comments on these pages.
Libturd school for libturds – not to be trusted
Idiots like skellum calling out others on IQ is fucking hilarious. Thanks for the daily laughs! Too stupid to know you are stupid!!!
If Donald Trump had said it, would you then believe the study’s findings? Because everything Donald says is true.
If you agreed with me, I would be a libturd too. The thought is repulsive!!!!
Agreed… Just the thought of a libturd agreeing with me gives me the creeps
Unlikely…
Intelligent people don’t usually agree with conservaturds.
Its alway funny when libturds think they are smart. Even a pack of wild dogs are smart enough not to let the dumbest of the heard lead them.
Support of a racist, corrupt detentia patient and a whore is the proof of you stupidity, but thanks for the laughs.
Becky, most liberals I know are smart enough to use “herd” and “your” correctly in a sentence.
“Support of a racist, corrupt detentia patient”. So stop supporting Lyin’ Donnie.
“Becky, most liberals I know are smart enough to use “herd” and “your” correctly in a sentence.”
Txloser, apparently you agree with everything she said, other than typos, huh? Your reputation for stupidity is fully intact.
Tony Aroma, you are a severely damage individual, get help.
The amount of lies told to libturds by the communist media is staggering.
The amount of news withheld to the libturds by the communist media is staggering.
The amount of stupidity of the libturds not to know this is staggering.
George, your lack of intelligence is prominently on display.
Stupidity is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
Hey, George, most liberals also know how to use “damaged” in a sentence. I’m thinking that the Russians need to spend more on English lessons for their agents sowing division in American society.
Unlike everything posted by some random guy on the internet.
Anything from Calif is to be question.
Where’s the right butt check study? It seems a lot more applicable.
I’m not a “tinfoil hat” guy but I am a little worried about 5G…think I will keep my iPhone 11 for a while.
And how the heck are people supposed to carry their phones you ask?
Well, it seems this will open up a whole new market for cell phone guards.
Metal plates for your pocket, purse, etc. that projects the EMP away from your body.
How effective would that be? …Using airplane mode kind of defeats the purpose of having the phone.
It’s so much better in stereo. Did not trust those cel phones from the start. Long term affects are never considered as much as they should be.
I just stay away from them.
Airpods still transmit wirelessly with the same kind of RF. Use wired headphones and bring back the headphone jack.
How so?
Different freqs, different power.
So they are saying I might get an ass tumor?!
You won’t be alone.
There are many here who talk out of their ass…
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. This is not a study – no new data was gathered. This was a meta-analysis. And I call BS.
The rate of cell phone usage over the past 20 years has gone up exponentially. So if these “findings” are true, and allowing for a few year lag for tumors to develop, the rate of brain cancer should be increasing in a commensurate fashion. Further, the rate of brain cancer in the left hemisphere would have risen significantly (as most righties hold their phones in their left hand when talking).
But there is no such rise. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3098028/
https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html
These study is DOA.
And Berkeley is an awesome school. It has brought us countless advances and has some of the best research going. But that doesn’t prevent some bad stuff from slipping through and it is nowhere near enough to tarnish its reputation.
Excellent point!
Well done JimBob…….!!!
“And Berkeley is an awesome school. It has brought us countless advances and has some of the best research going.
Like what for instance?
Look no further than the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry awarded in part to Jennifer Doudna of UCB for CRISPR, which gives us the ability to rewrite DNA with incredible precision. We’re talking RNA that can target any faulty gene. Already demonstrated to CURE sickle cell anemia in trials, and it will likely result in cures for several types of cancer.
Glenn Seaborg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_T._Seaborg countless advances with applications from nuclear medicine, to smoke detectors, and more.
There are dozens and dozens of terrific examples in just chemistry alone – but you can Google that up yourself.
I want to agree, as the analysis is unsettling. But there are a few things to consider:
Meta-analysis is frequently stronger than the sum of its parts. Studies have different methodologies, different subjects, different time periods. Any one study can have flaws in design or practice. Meta-analysis shows overall trends.
Cancer rates of all kinds have been improving, mostly due to decreased use of tobacco.
The NIH study you link to is from 2010. Mobile use on the scale we see today had really only been around for a decade. Hopefully, that study would return the same rates now or in 10 years.
And when it comes to ‘studies’ what’s the first rule of thumb?; follow the money. AKA, who’s paying for it? What entity has something to gain from the study’s conclusions?