U.S. Agencies Split Over Cell Phone Cancer Risk

177

Two U.S. government agencies are giving conflicting interpretations of a safety study on cell phone radiation: One says it causes cancer in rats. The other says there’s no reason for people to worry.

No new research was issued but last week the National Toxicology Program dialed up its concerns about a link to heart and brain cancer from a study of male rats that was made public last winter.
The Food and Drug Administration, which monitors the security of the mobile phone, does not correspond to the upgraded warning. Dr. FDA radiological health chief Dr. “These findings should not be applied to human cell phones,” said Jeffrey Shuren.

Most importantly, what happens in humans is not the rats, but the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. Otis Brawley.

Id The incidence of brain tumors in humans has flattened for the last 40 years, B said Brawley. “This is the absolute most important scientific fact.“

ORIGINAL WORK

In a $ 30 million survey, scientists placed mice and rats in private rooms and bombed them for nine hours per day for up to two years in most of their natural life, with radio frequency waves, such as those emitted by 2G and 3G phones.

Levels of experienced rodents were typically much higher than those exposed.
RESULTS

In February, the National Toxicology Program said there was a small increase in an unusual cardiac tumor in male rats, but not in mice or female rats. The agency concluded that a link had ”some evidence Ajans. In addition, in February report beyin equivalent evidence “of brain tumors in male rats was indicated.

On Thursday, the agency upgraded the description of these findings. The increase in heart tumor was marked as kanser clear proof “of cancer in male rats. There is ları some evidence Bey of brain cancer.

The change came after the agency asked external experts to analyze the findings.

Kabul We believe that the connection between radio frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real, and that external experts are accepted, edil said John Bucher, senior scientist at the toxicology agency.

The agency said that the risks to rats were not directly applied to people, but the work raised questions about security.

disagreement

The FDA immediately denied a press release from the Americans that lam decades of research and hundreds of surveys ın have ensured that Americans were assured that mobile phone radiation could protect public health.

In addition, the FDA received the attention of rodent studies, as did the irradiated rats longer than the comparison rats in which they were not exposed to rays. The toxicology agency said that radiofrequency energy helps the kidneys of older rats.

George Gray, a professor of public health at George Washington University, said there were grounds for two different government agencies asking for different questions.

Gray, a former chief of science for the Environmental Protection Agency, said the toxicology program was studying how cell phone radiation affects animals. By examining what it means for people in the email, the FDA bu brings more information and data sources than these new tests in mice and mice,, he said.

SOFONES ARE SAFE?

. I’m calling you on my cell phone, dan says the Brawley of cancer society.

He pointed to a known risk from mobile phones: when the drivers distracted the car, the car crashed.

When it comes to cancer, if people are involved, they can use headphones or speakers.

No risk readers.

”My family and I won’t change our cell phone habits based on this news, için says George Washington’s Olan Author: A Practical Guide to Deciding Those Who Are Really Safe” and bu Really Dangerous for the World Around You. “

The Department of Health and Science, Associated Press, receives the support of the Science Education Department at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Legal warning !
The information, comments and suggestions there are not covered by investment advice. It is based on the author's personal opinions. These views may not fit your financial situation and risk and return preferences. For this reason, based solely on this information, investment decisions may not have the appropriate consequences for your expectation. Our Site is not responsible for any direct or indirect damages incurred by the investors as a result of the use of the information on the Site, deficiencies in the sources, damages incurred by profit, moral damages, or damage to third parties.