★★★★★ 0/5

Experts dispute Catalyst report linking WiFi to cancer

Catalyst claims linking wifi to cancer are being labelled as a "fringe position" by local experts.

6
Leave a comment

2016-02-17_1735

Looks like Media Watch has its next story contender: Catalyst.

Tuesday’s report entitled “WiFried” linked brain cancer to radio-frequency electromagnetic fields with US doctor, Devra Davis saying: “Every single well-designed study ever conducted finds an increased risk of brain cancer with the heaviest users, and the range of the risk is between 50% to eightfold. That’s a fact.”

But local experts have strongly disagreed with claims made on the show.

Professor Rodney Croft, director of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia’s Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy, told News Corp, “I was particularly disappointed to see Wi-Fried air yesterday in the guise of science journalism, and felt it important to reassure other viewers that the fringe position provided by Dr Davis and associates is merely that, a fringe position that is not supported by science,.

“There is very strong scientific consensus that, even after considering such personal views as Dr Davis’, there is no substantiated evidence that the low levels of radio-frequency emissions encountered by mobile telecommunications can cause any harm.

“Of course it is impossible for science to demonstrate that anything is absolutely safe, and so regardless of whether we’re talking about Wi-Fi or orange juice, science cannot demonstrate absolute safety.

“However, given that radio-frequency emissions are one of the most heavily researched agents that science has ever assessed, and given that (contrary to Catalyst’s claims) no substantiated health effects have emerged, we can be very confident that the emissions are indeed safe.”

Public health professor Simon Chapman also told Guardian Australia there was no evidence of any increase in the rate of brain cancer among Australians per 100,000 in the population between 1982 and today.

“All cancer in Australia is compulsorily reported, it’s a notifiable disease, so we have extremely good data about the incidence of cancer in Australia,” he said.

“For brain cancer, the incidence per 100,000 flatlines for men and women throughout the whole time from 1982 to today, in spite of millions of people using cellphones and being exposed to Wi-Fi for a large number of years.

“This is not the first time Catalyst have aired a questionable episode, and there really needs to be a review of their editorial process,” he said.

6 Responses

  1. All objections dealt with in programme, showing that those who are criticising it haven’t watched it or are lying and pushing their own financial interests.

    The rate of cancers are very low and the take decades to emerge so you aren’t likely see anything in those statistics. These sorts of cancers, as the show repeatedly said, are rare occurring at rates like 3 per 100,000 population so a 50% increase would be 4.5 per 100,000.

    There is evidence that mobile phone transmitters are strong enough to cause thermal and radiowave effects when held to your skull which has been proven produce chemical changes and damage DNA in reliable replicable experiments. This is only likely to affect people who hold their phone to their head and use it a lot for decades. Just use earplugs or the speaker phone instead if you are a heavy user.

    There is no evidence of any problems over distances…

  2. I watched this and was gob-smacked to see how Demasi presented the information. I thought that perhaps I was kidding myself with what I thought I understood about this but it was the same as with the sugar/fat story.

    The (fringe) views of one or two proponents were aired with credulity and an emphasis to suggest that there was a lot of support for them. Again, an opposing perspective from a representative of a govt authority was given roughly equal air time, but they were shown in such a manner that it was relatively easy to take the view that they were just spouting the “official” position.

    Unlike Demasi, I’m not going to suggest a pattern based on two data points, but it’s a bit of a concern that Davis’s claims about the “well-designed studies” weren’t checked more thoroughly.

    Presumably, studies which don’t support here position are not “well-designed” (which may…

  4. I must admit, I am sceptical about the idea of Wi-Fi causing huge health problems ((Full disclosure of my bias, I am a full geek)).
    I am under the impression that a lot of this is just further fear-mongering about new technology, which has been going on forever (Like how microwaves were meant to do horrible things to you).

    I cannot help but laugh whenever I hear the intense straight faced nature of the “dangers of social media”, when anyone who uses it can easily identity many of the flaws in the report.
    Or how X or Y is bad for children (next they’ll be telling us breathing is bad for children).

    There are of course real health concerns, about back posture from sitting in computer chairs, eye strain from looking at white backgrounds all day and so forth. But a lot of these are self-inflicted and can be fixed generally speaking.
    But something as drastic as cancer? I doubt it,…

    1. Like skin cancer, speaking from 71 years experience, many cancers take decades to materialise. Yes, microwave ovens will do a Madame Curie on you if they are damaged or leak. Tumors and cancers from mobile phone radiation will take many decades to show up, just like many skin cancers.

Leave a Reply