• IARC classifies the carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation


Now it is official.

The long awaited IARC evaluation of the carcinogenicity of mobile phone emitted radiation is complete.

At the meeting at the IARC headquarters in Lyon, France, Working Group of invited experts has reviewed scientific evidence and, based on the currently available published scientific evidence  decided whether mobile phone radiation is carcinogenic.

IARC classifies agents in the following categories:

Group 1: Carcinogenic to humans

Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans

Group 2B: Possibly carcinogenic to humans

Group 3: Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans

Group 4: Probably not carcinogenic to humans

The Working Group decided today, May 31st, 2011, that mobile phone radiation belongs to the 2B category – possibly carcinogenic agent.

The clear message of the evaluation is, in my opinion, that we have indications of possible carcinogenicity but the inconsistent quality of the research studies and lack of studies in some important areas prevent us from making more reliable (and definite?) classification. It simply means that we need more of studies in certain areas.

More news about the Lyon meeting I will provide later this week, when I recover from the meeting marathon in Lyon.


2 thoughts on “• IARC classifies the carcinogenicity of mobile phone radiation

  1. Dear Ferdinando, the classification 2B possible carcinogen and 2B probable carcinogen is slightly different, as you know.

    However, the fact still remains that the “carcinogen classification” should educate parents, and ensure safer cell phone use by their children.

    No-one will be able to say in the future that they did not know of any risks. So now, anyone who uses a cell phone “recklessly”, do so at their own risk, as they have been warned. This is my opinion.

  2. I agree with your comments concerning the meaning of “possible carcinogenic”. For sure It is necessary further research, even if it is also important to stress for the media that “possible carcinogen” is quite different from “probable”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.