WHO Study Linking Cell Phones to Cancer Concerning, Unconvincing

COMMENTARY | News broke Tuesday that has the potential to impact more than 77 percent of the world's population. The World Health Organization released a report that indicates that certain cell phone users are at a greater risk of cancer. The Consumerist reports cell phone users most at risk are those who talk on the phone for more than 30 minutes a day on average. The study found a 40 percent greater increase in the risk of cancer for this group.

My first reaction upon hearing this news was that I wish they had told me sooner. I remember studies coming out that indicated there was no increased cancer risk. According to the National Cancer Institute, there was no direct causal link between brain cancer and cell phone usage. The confusion of always hearing rumors but never seeing any scientific evidence made me believe that cell phone usage was likely safe and the increased risk was a myth. This is strange, as the current World Health Organization (WHO) report indicates that there is a link and contradicts many other studies.

Upon further examination, there appears to be a potential overreaction of the WHO to the data. According to a wireless association vice president, the study also showed an increased risk of cancer from common items such as pickles, reports the Los Angeles Times. Although I was never a good science student, it would seem to me that if the study group is large enough, it would be easy to find links between many common things and cancer -- especially something as often used as a cell phone.

Finally, I noticed that the study indicates that heavy usage is 30 minutes a day. I would be surprised if, in most developed countries, 30 minutes a day is heavy usage. That would be one long conversation for most people. If that is heavy usage and there is a 40 percent increased risk, wouldn't there be a noticeable increase in cancer rates as the use of cell phones increased?

Having thought about the new study released by the WHO, I am skeptical. I understand that there are politics involved with anything the United Nations is involved in. Perhaps the data were able to be interpreted in more than one way, or the link was not so much causal as casual. It will be interesting to see what the scientific community can come up with once it has had a chance to fully analyze the data.