SAN FRANCISCO (CBS SF) — High exposure to radiofrequency radiation — the radiation known as RFR and emitted from your cell phone — causes a rare cancer in male rats, according to draft conclusions released by the National Institutes of Health on Friday.

The two technical reports, one on mice and the other on rats, released by the NIH’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) show the exposure to the high levels of radiation resulted in tumors in the tissues surrounding nerves in the heart of male rats.

Both male and female rats that were exposed to high levels of RFR showed increased patterns of damage to their heart tissue, according to the researchers.

ALSO READ: California Health Officials Release Guidelines To Avoid Cellphone Radiation

“The levels and duration of exposure to RFR were much greater than what people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use, and exposed the rodents’ whole bodies. So, these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage,” said NTP senior scientist Dr. John Bucher in a written statement. “We note, however, that the tumors we saw in these studies are similar to tumors previously reported in some studies of frequent cell phone users.”

ALSO READ: Cellphone Radiation Exposure Fact Sheet Draft Released By California Health Officials

Bucher said these studies “provide the most comprehensive assessment, to date, of health effects in rats and mice from exposure to RFR.”

Researchers said that newborn rats and their mothers had lower body weights, especially when exposed to high levels of RFR during pregnancy and lactation. However, those animals eventually grew to normal size.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Communications Commission jointly are responsible for regulations pertaining to wireless communication devices.

NTP will hold an external expert review of its complete findings on these studies in late March.

By Hannah Albarazi – Follow her on Twitter: @hannahalbarazi.

Comments (53)
  1. Doug Day says:

    So, I guess this “rare cancer” doesn’t have a name yet…because it’s so rare…and that’s why CBS couldn’t put the name in their story. Bravo.

  2. Living organisms tend to develop maladies when subjected to high levels of almost anything. This smells like more saccharine buffoonery.

  3. “RFR” ??? I’m an EE with decades of RF experience…while it is true that the general name for “radio waves” is “electromagnetic radiation” not all radiation types are the same. In the case of radio waves you encounter from 99.9% of man-made sources the term “radiation” really means “emission”. The general public understandably associates the word “radiation” with “atomic radiation” or “radioactivity” which is IONIZING radiation – meaning that it can change the atomic make-up of atoms. The cell phone radio radiation in this newly coined RFR is NOT ionizing radiation and therefore does not possess the energy level to ionize atoms which can cause genetic mutations. Of course, the leave the “money shot” for the last sentence “NTP will hold an external expert review of its complete findings on these studies in late March.”

    1. John Akridge says:

      Rational, educated, common sense, thoughtful, discerning…..very rare, Thank You Michael.

    2. Joe Veritas says:

      Foolish to keep a cell phone pressed against your head for hours a day – you wouldn’t do that with a functioning microwave, would you?

      1. A typical microwave oven outputs about 1000 Watts of power, and the reflective walls of the oven ensure that all of it goes into cooking your food. A mobile phone outputs at most 1 Watt of power, and it only outputs that much when the tower signal is weak, and only a fraction of that power (at most perhaps 1/4) is directed toward your body.

        So the dose of microwaves which your food gets in the microwave oven is at least 4000× as high as the dose you get from holding your mobile phone near your head to chat.

        So, do you think you should worry about that? Well, if you were on a beach, slathered with SPF 4000 sunscreen, would you worry about being harmed by the Sun’s UV radiation?

        Probably not, even though UV is ionizing radiation, which really can cause cancer, unlike the low-energy photos emitted by mobile phones.

        Radio waves, infrared radiation, visible light, ultraviolet radiation, x-rays, and gamma rays are all forms of electromagnetic radiation (“EM”). The energy per quanta (“photon”) of radiation is inversely proportional to the wavelength of the radiation. So, for example, a photon of violet light at 400 nm wavelength has nearly twice the energy of a photon of a photon of red light at 700 nm.

        Shorter wavelengths (= higher frequencies) are more dangerous, because the photons are higher energy. If a photon is sufficiently high-energy, then when it is absorbed by an atom or molecule of matter it may cause “ionization” by causing an electron to gain enough energy to escape, and when that happens it can affect the chemistry of the matter. When such a chemical change alter DNA, they can cause cancer.

        That’s why it’s the ultraviolet (“UV”) part of sunlight that is harmful.

        Visible light is not dangerous unless it is extremely intense, because its wavelength is long enough that its individual photons do not carry enough energy to do damage. Its wavelength is about 400 (violet) to 700 nm (red), so its photons are insufficiently energetic to cause ionization.

        Note that the UV in sunlight is about 95% UVA (315 to 400 nm), and 5% UVB (280 to 315 nm), but the shorter UVB is the more dangerous of the two.

        Infrared is longer wavelength yet, so it has even less potential for harm. It just warms you, without ever ionizing the molecules in your body.

        Your own body, and the earth itself, are quite intense emitters of infrared radiation! Infrared is defined as covering the very broad range from 700 (almost visible) to 1,000,000 nm. The IR emission peak from the human body is around 12,000 nm (12 µm). Note that that means the IR photons typically emitted by your body are only about 1/17-th as energetic as photons of red light.

        Mobile phones use spectrum which is at wavelengths much longer even than that: from about 430,000,000 nm (700 MHz) to 110,000,000 nm (2700 MHz = 2.7 GHz). That means the typical IR photons emitted by your own body are at least 9000 times as energetic as the most energetic photons of the “radiation” emitted by mobile phones!

        And now you know why physicists and electrical engineers scoff at the notion that mobile phones (or even microwave ovens) could cause cancer.

        Unfortunately, most journalists and so-called “science communicators” do not have STEM educations, and are unable to understand the science topics which they write about. Most of them are politically leftist, as well, which makes them biased and paranoid about things like “chemicals” and “radiation.” So they are perfect stooges for passing on scary fake-news stories about health, climate, and the environment.

    3. Cathy Frank says:

      You may think its controversial but there are other opinions out there that don’t look only at ionizing, vibrational effects on cells which can effect cellular communication (which is not well understood) as well as cell dehydration. Not my theories, just saying they exist and should be considered as the source of disease.

    4. Kenneth Wood says:

      True but there may be more to consider. To be clear, I am NOT in the camp that says cell phones will kill us all but there is more to the story that just the fundamental frequency of the transceiver. For one, you harmonics of the fundamental that do go into the ionizing range but I think more importantly is the vibratory effects. A microwave oven operates somewhere around 2450 MHz. Your cell phone does radiate near this frequency so it is possible…WiFi is right at that frequency so there could also be an issue… Just saying is all.

    5. Thank you, Michael, for injecting some well-informed sanity into this conversation.

  4. Rich Fidler says:

    Yeah, and rats got cancer five decades ago when they pounded down six diet Cokes a day. GMAFB.

  5. Dave Fay says:

    “The levels and duration of exposure to RFR were much greater than what people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use, and exposed the rodents’ whole bodies. So, these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage,”

    In other words, just another completely useless and meaningless study.

    1. Dan Roth says:

      Bet it was an expensive one too.

  6. Do not allow your rats to have cell phones!

  7. hitrestart1 says:

    Why did they use only liberals as test subjects?

  8. Bob Suyak says:

    Now democrats in Congress will have a valid reason for not doing anything.

  9. Ferd Berfel says:

    so take your rat’s cell phone away and he’ll be fine, duh

  10. Larry Powell says:

    Rats should go back to beepers.

  11. I bought a radiation detector, My Laptop and Router sent the thing into the red on the meter. 1250- 1245 on both. My old iphone 5s Meh, hardly anything. I have not even tested my smartmeter yet and will probably freak when I do.

    1. Please do and let us know what you get. Have to wear a phone all day at work, plus mine!

  12. Doc Farmer says:

    Yeah, the world really needs to protect the health of Texting Rodents…

    Everything you eat, drink, inhale, exhale, touch, think, dream or hear will cause a tumor in SOME rat SOMEwhere, so get over it!

  13. John Bukaty says:

    I sense a new cellphone tax for Californians coming soon

  14. Carl Mayo says:

    here come the defenders, claiming that only ionizing radiation can cause cancer.
    non-ionizing microwave emf has already been proven to cause dna strand breaks. anything that can break down dna bonds IS a potential carcinogen.

  15. Where do rats carry their cellphones? Do they have purses or do they carry them in their pant pockets? Are their cellphones the same size as ours? This article is missing way to much information.

  16. Have the rats lawyered up yet?

  17. About 12 years ago had a job traveling between locations in the Central Valley and Sonoma County, my boss wanted my on the company cell phone (nokia) when I was driving, which was about 5 hours a day. Two years ago I had a pie shaped piece of my ear removed, the ear I had held the phone against my ear.
    Even though, as it was reported, manufacturers knew of the radiation danger they refused to note that information in the “black box” warnings.

  18. So from what I read the results of this study shouldn’t necessarily be concerning to humans using cell phones, but rather, only to rats using cell phones…….. lol

  19. >>> “The levels and duration of exposure to RFR were much greater than what people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use, and exposed the rodents’ whole bodies. So, these findings should not be directly extrapolated to human cell phone usage,” <<<
    Okay, so in English, Cell Phone Radiation does NOT harm you. But hey, let's release this 'study' anyway and scare the heck out of everybody because they don't read the fine print!
    BTW, this is not unusual, all these so-called studies expose the Mice & Rats to limits No Human ever could duplicate!!
    Additionally, Lab Rats & Mice are not normal animals they are specially bred to have almost no immune system and could die if you had a cold and coughed on them. This is a FACT.

  20. What this article basically says is that scientists conducted a useless study and published the results. Now the news runs an article to scare people regarding cell phones.
    I deal with toxicology daily and if you are exposed to excessive levels of ANYTHING it is bad for you.

  21. The rats were calling their friends and relatives in the DNC.

  22. For anyone listening to Alex Jones this is a thoroughly reported story going back more than 10 years. Glad to see that MSM is finally catching up. Now if they would start researching atrazine, an agricultural herbicide that the runoff is polluting drinking water and turning amphibians in the surrounding ponds where the water table of the contiguous united states comes from multi-sexual offspring we might get some real news for a change.

  23. Hal Slusher says:

    And if you force feed a rat 3 oz. of salt it will drop dead. Even though you need salt to live any extreme anything will kill you.

  24. Asian countries for Asians.

    Black countries for Blacks.

    but White countries for everybody?

    That’s genocide.

    Anti-racist is a codeword for Anti-White.

  25. Jerry Atrick says:

    So if everyone uses a cellphone then why is this cancer so rare?

  26. Paddy Murphy says:

    Darn, I never knew rats had cell phones! Exactly where do they keep them? In their hats?

  27. Of course, it is a coincidence that the big fruit cellphone company slowed down their older phones? Correlation can be made with the shoulder-carried Boomboxes of the 70s, the Walkman of the 80s, the earbuds of the 90’s, the Dr, Dre ear cans of the 00s, the flattened index fingers of the texting 10s and now the obvious cellphone brain-rot of the current generation. Not to mention the fat butts related to carry phones in levi hip pockets. Far too much evidence to deny.

  28. The broadcast report is directly contradicted by the written story. The broadcast report said that rodents developed cancer from RFR levels which “meet or exceed federal guidelines” for mobile phones. But the written story says, “The levels and duration of exposure to RFR were much greater than what people experience with even the highest level of cell phone use…”

    The “expert” interview snippet is wrong, too. Their so-called expert claimed that mice and rats are used in these studies “because they predict very well the effect on humans.” But that is nonsense.

    The reality, which I thought everyone in the field knew, is that rodents are used because they are cheap and convenient, even though it is well-known that they aren’t very good predictors human effects. Here’s a peer-reviewed 2009 paper, “Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure.”

    KPIX San Francisco is a leftist station, run by leftist journalists, in a leftist enclave within a State notorious for having more than its fair share of leftist crackpots. So it doesn’t surprise me that they botched yet another story.

  29. Kenneth Dale says:

    What kind of people do this kid of thing to rats? It is cruel. Besides, in the real world, very few rats have cellphones.

  30. It’s even more stupid than you might think.

    Go look at the actual results of the study:
    From the CBS link, go to the end of the page and the R-595 Technical Data on rats. Then find the first “2 year” section. Find the “P11 Survival Data” or “P40 Survival Curves.”

    What you will find: the non-exposed rats died SOONER than those exposed to the radiation, across the board!

    (Combine that with the fact that these exposure levels are crazy-high. 1.5 to 6 watts per Kg of body weight? For typical 60Kg 14 year old girl (50th percentile in US) that would literally be holding a 90 to 360 watt light bulb next to her head. OUCH! Maybe they kept the lab room cold so the rats who got all that heat were more comfortable?

    All I can say: this is a ridiculous study. Particularly since actual cell power levels are:
    (Compare to: 90,000 mW to 360,000 mW in the study)
    MAX: 200mW total (23dBm)
    Typical during conversation: 1 to 10 mW (0 to 10 dBm)
    Idling when not in conversation: .0001 mW (-40dBm)

    1. (My “real world” data is from the official int’l cell phone standards. 3GPP 36.101 and 36.866 section 6.3 and surrounding.)

    2. Thank you for this good information, Pete.

  31. Mike Gieser says:

    This lame article fails to mention that the cancer was a form of carpotunnel syndrome caused by over texting.

  32. Robert Wyatt says:

    I seem to remember a “gubment study” many years ago concern a sweetener put in Kool-Aid called cyclamates. It too, caused cancer in lab rats when given the equivalent of one gallon of Kool Aid consumed daily for 20 years.
    This study, too, seems to use vastly more exposure to the radiation than a person would normally be exposed to on a daily basis…..
    It also appears that the “gubment” thinks that these studies have an impact on our way of thinking, just like ALGORE thinks that if the polar ice cap melts the country would flood.
    Apparently ALGORE wasn’t aware that in 1959 the polar ice cap DID INFACT MELT, and the country ‘did not’ flood. One of the many flaws in his movie……….

  33. Lets do a new study ,Feed the mice GMOs, Place cell phones in the cage, Turn on CNN and give them fluoridated water to drink.