IARC Monograph 102

Today IARC has published on-line the Monograph 102 that was prepared in the course of evaluation of the carcionogenicity of cell phone radiation in May 2011.

Link to the monograph:



4 thoughts on “IARC Monograph 102

  1. Furthermore, hypotheses explaining the results of the experiment should be examined.
    The hypothesis of the RADAR-like exposure used on the rats being a universal carcinogen which raises the occurrence of cancer in most organs by a factor of about 2 to 3 explains well all the results presented in all the lines of table 2 in the paper.
    The large total risk presented at the end of table 2 and its strong statistical significance out-rules the possibility of the cancers happening by a mere chance.
    The hypothesis of some error in the experiment is unlikely due to the quality of this research.
    So the only viable hypothesis is that of the carcinogenic influence. The paper does not offer any other.

  2. Dear Dariusz,
    I appreciate the very important, careful and detailed work done by the IARC. This said, I think the results of Chou CK et al.: “Long-term, low level microwave irradiation of rats.” Bioelectromagnetics 1992 are treated too lightly on the page 259 of the IARC report. Chou et al. found at least a two-fold increase of cancer in rats caused by exposure to pulsed RF radiation in a very well controlled two year experiment. The logic by which this result is assigned only a limited biological significance both in the paper and in the IARC report is partitioning the mouse into many organs, finding that the number of cancer cases found per each organ is too small to be statistically significant and concluding that this means the two-fold increase in the total cancer risk has only a limited biological significance. I think there is a problem with this approach:
    By this logic any experimental result can be assigned a limited biological significance. For example, suppose the number of brain cancers in some hypothetical experiment, say 5, is statistically significant. Now if one examines a finer partition, such as examining each brain lobe or each tissue type separately, maybe there will be not more than one case occurring in any lobe and the results can be declared of limited significance. This will always happen if the partition is fine enough.
    The paper seems to show that the particular RADAR-like RF exposure tested increases the total cancer risk by a factor of least two in most of the organs and that the number of cancers found in each organ would be statistically significant if many more rats were used (which seems not practical). It seems to indicate that RADAR exposure is very dangerous to rats and also to humans as seen in the paper on radar technicians by Richter cited in the IARC report.
    Can you perhaps explain this point?
    This is a small point compared to the whole IARC report; it would of course not change the overall conclusion.
    Best regards,

  3. Is this not an extraordinarily long time for IARC to put out a monograph?

    Why did they include a dissenting opinion? Is this normal? Why not include dissent the other way?

    I don’t recall any prominence at the time given to the Sato study, but the conclusion refers to it (correct?) – how important was it then in tipping IARC opinion 2B-ward?

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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