Keep cellphones and tablets away from your body–they cause cancer

The preliminary finding of the 25 million dollar peer-reviewed study by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), overseen by the National Institutes of Health. found that  cellphone communications frequencies at 900 megahertz increased cancer rates in male rats.   Although the official report will not be released until 2017, the data concurs with the 2011 World Health Organization finding that cellphone radiation was a group 2B possible carcinogen. This study showed that the telecommunication industry’s claim “there is no risk” hold no water  and is similar to the initial tobacco industry’s  claim that “smoking did not cause cancer.”  Although the harmful effects are probably small, they are a risk factor!

We are the first generation that is covertly and chronically exposed to radio frequency radiatio (RFR). The long term effects are still partially unknown. Who knows what the future effects will be for children whose brains and bodies are still developing while being exposed the cellphone/tablet radio frequency radiation for hours a day. Remember,the RFR is similar to the radar beam–albeit at a lower intensity–used to cook your food in your microwave oven.

I strongly recommend to adapt the precautionary principle and assume that cellphones could be harmful. Thus, keep cellphones and tablets away from your body. Put them in your purse, attaché case, or backpack.  Use speaker phone or blue tooth earphones and microphone to talk.  When not in use,  put it on airplane mode to reduce long term exposure to RFR. For more recommendation see:

Read the detailed analysis by Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D. Director, Center for Family & Community Health, School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, which has been reprinted with permission below  from

Monday, May 30, 2016 by Joel Moskowitz, PhD.

National Toxicology Program Finds Cell Phone Radiation Causes Cancer

SPIN vs FACT: National Toxicology Program report on cancer risk from cellphone radiation

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health reported partial findings from their $25 million study of the cancer risk from cellphone radiofrequency radiation (RFR). Controlled studies of rats showed that RFR caused two types of tumors, glioma and schwannoma. The results “…could have broad implications for public health.”

A factsheet on the NTP study that summarizes some biased statements, or “Spin,” about the study that tend to create doubt about data quality and implications, as well as “Facts” from decades of previous research is available at

Factd versus spinAccording to the NTP report:

“Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to RFR [radiofrequency radiation] could have broad implications for public health.”

Overall, thirty of 540 (5.5%), or one in 18 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer.  In addition,16 pre-cancerous hyperplasias were diagnosed. Thus, 46 of 540, or one in 12 male rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion as compared to none of the 90 unexposed male rats. The two types of cancer examined in the exposed rats were glioma and schwannoma. Both types have been found in human studies of cell phone use.

In the group exposed to the lowest intensity of cell phone radiation (1.5 watts/kilogram or W/kg), 12 of 180, or one in 15 male rats developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion.

This latter finding has policy implications for the FCC’s current cell phone regulations which allow cell phones to emit up to 1.6 W/kg at the head or near the body (partial body Specific Absorption Rate or SAR).

The NTP study is likely a “game-changer” as it proves that non-ionizing, radiofrequency radiation can cause cancer without heating tissue.

The results of the study reinforce the need for more stringent regulation of radiofrequency radiation and better disclosure of the health risks associated with wireless technologies — two demands made by the International EMF Scientist Appeal — a petition signed by 220 scientists who have published research on the effects of electromagnetic radiation.

Along with other recently published studies on the biologic and health effects of cell phone radiation, the International Agency for Research on Cancer of the World Health Organization should now have sufficient data to reclassify radiofrequency radiation from “possibly carcingogenic” to “probably carcinogenic in humans.”

The risk of cancer increased with the intensity of the cell phone radiation whereas no cancer was found in the sham controls—rats kept in the same apparatus but without any exposure to cell phone radiation.

In contrast to the male rats, the incidence of cancer in female rats among those exposed to cell phone radiation was not statistically significant. Overall, sixteen of 540 (3.0%), or one in 33 female rats exposed to cell phone radiation developed cancer or a pre-cancerous lesion as compared to none of the 90 unexposed females. The NTP has no explanation for the sex difference. The researchers pointed out that none of the human epidemiology studies has analysed the data by sex.

The researchers believe that the cancers found in this experimental study were caused by the exposure to cell phone radiation as none of the control animals developed cancer. The researchers controlled the temperature of the animals to prevent heating effects so the cancers were caused by a non-thermal mechanism.

One of two types of second-generation (2G) cell phone technology, GSM and CDMA, were employed in this study. The frequency of the signals was 900 MHz. The rats were exposed to cell phone radiation every 10 minutes followed by a 10-minute break for 18 hours, resulting in nine hours a day of exposure over a two-year period. Both forms of cell phone radiation were found to increase cancer risk in the male rats.

For each type of cell phone radiation, the study employed four groups of 90 rats — a sham control group that was not exposed to radiation, and three exposed groups.  The lowest exposure group had a SAR of 1.5 W/kg which is within the FCC’s legal limit for partial body SAR exposure (e.g., at the head) from cell phones. The other exposure groups had SARs of 3 and 6 W/kg.

Glioma is a common type of brain cancer in humans. It affects about 25,000 people per year in the U.S. and is the most common cause of cancer death in adults 15-39 years of age. Several major studies have found increased risk of glioma in humans associated with long-term, heavy cell phone use.

In humans, schwannoma is a nonmalignant tumor that grows in Schwann cells that cover a nerve which connects to the brain. Numerous studies have found an increased risk of this rare tumor in heavy cell phone users. In the rat study, malignant schwannoma was found in Schwann cells in the heart.

For more information about the NTP study see

For references to the research that found increased risk of malignant and nonmalignant tumors among long-term cell phone users see

The NTP report is available at



Placebo, social compliance, belief and health

After taking the drug Rumyodin my fear of heights totally disappeared.

I totally stopped smoking.

I continue to be intrigued how mind and body affect each other as in many cases we are our own worst enemies.  Our beliefs are the result of family, friends, cultural and social hypnotic inductions and our lived experiences. We know we are not smart in math because we struggled in 4th grade and our parents said that we were just like aunt Cindy who also was poor in math. The limits of our experiences are often constraint by the limits of our beliefs.

Our covert belief constraints our performance.  Just looking at the math problems causes us to freeze—we already know we cannot do it.  This is no different from being psyched out in sports.  We look at the other athlete and we give up because we know/assume they are better than us. If we can free ourselves from our own limitations, who knows what is possible?  How can we be open and trusting that new options are possible instead of feeling fearful? What is needed to change your beliefs?  We are often unaware how much of our experience is shaped by covert suggestions, imitation and social compliance.

This process has been demonstrated with hypnosis and placebo treatment or medications. They may result in remarkable clinical outcome such as painless surgery without anesthesia, elimination of fear of heights, or resolving an asthmatic episodes. In many cases the outcomes may even be more dramatic if the information is made totally believable and fits our beliefs.  This is the art of medicine.  The intersection of mustering the patients’ belief to support the actual medical treatment.

The following two videos,  Fear and Faith and How to Hypnotise Simon Pegg, by the well-known British stage hypnotist and illusionist, Derren Brown.  He magically weaves together the external environment, language, role modeling, hope, trust and social compliance so that we experience a change in health and beliefs. The first video demonstrates the power of placebo to improve health and performance while the second video illustrates the power of language to change memory and desire.

Fear and Faith A great video showing the power of placebo It uses the cover of a drug trial to convince various members of the public to overcome their fears using “Rumyodin” (your mind) and demonstrates that the limits of experience are the limits of your belief.

How To Hypnotise Simon PeggIllustrates how subtle suggestions can make the person transform a past memory.

Triumph and failure of medicine: When Breath Becomes Air by Paul Kalanithi

When Breath Becomes a remarkable first-person memoir by neurosurgeon Paul Kalanithi that follows his transformation from being an outstanding neurosurgeon and scientist to being a patient diagnosed with stage lV lung cancer. It shares in detail the challenges of the patient doctor relationship and the eventuality of facing death. It is a must book to read to understand the intense training that physicians undergo to reach the top of their profession. It also explores in detail the challenges facing patients and all of us when death stares us in the face.

When Breath becomes air

Dr. Kalanithi’s drive was to be the preeminent neurosurgeon and scientist.  When diagnosed with stage IV cancer, he receives the best scientific treatment at Stanford University Medical Center. His stellar treatment also illustrates medicine’s disregard of the healing process and how  the patient may contribute to his own healing process.  Even though the initial diagnosis appeared hopeless; nevertheless, he responded well to the cancer treatment. It is at this point the superb scientific Western medical approach  failed him. The failure was the medical culture of the hospital, his oncologists, and most importantly his own lack of somatic awareness. He did not listen to his own body crying out: “I am exhausted.”

When reading the book, I was shocked to realize how little he appeared to appreciate factors that suppressed the immune system.  He continued to be stressed to the extreme through working, working and working. After the initial recovery, he went back to the same pattern which had preceded the initial illness instead of respecting the biological regeneration process so that he could support the recovery of his immune system. He totally focused on performing surgery without listen to the needs of his own body.

When he initially  recovered from the cancer after the disease had regressed, he decided, “I would push myself to return to the OR (operating room). Why? Because I could.” After a month, he was again operating at nearly a full load. As he stated almost every evening he ended his days “exhausted beyond measure, muscle on fire, Coming home each night, I would scarf down a handful of pain pills, then crawl into bed.”

He was dedicated to his career and patient care. However, he did not listen to his own exhaustion. When reading this part in the book, I sadly predicted that his cancer would return with vengeance and that he would die. Although there are many causes of cancer and many treatments, in the end one component that may facilitate surviving cancer is the patient supporting his own functional immune system

Why was this brilliant neurosurgeon, his colleagues, and his physicians, so disconnected from common sense? After trauma ,the body needs time to regenerate and recover. Having meaningful work and relationships is important; however, pushing yourself to exhaustion in pursuit of professional is a prescription for illness.

Whatever happened to the well documented knowledge that ongoing excessive stress without time to regenerate is a predictable risk factor for illness and even death? High stress is associated with poorer survival in patients with cancer. (Chida et al, 2008; Denaro et, 2014). How come the medical staff was unaware of the concept of “Karoshi” a Japanese word invented in 1978 which means death from overwork (International Labor Organization, 2013).

Possibly, this disconnect from common sense is embedded in medical training in which residents and interns work 24 hours or longer shifts. With the drive and pride to perform at any time, medical staff are trained to disregard the signals of their own body.  One cannot burn the midnight oil indefinitely with incurring consequences. Do we really want our doctors, those to whom we entrust our very lives, living and working on the knife-edge of exhaustion?

Possible medicine need to encourage and support common sense such as a regular life style, exercise, healthy diet, and social support (see the book Fighting Cancer by Robert Gorter and Erik Peper, 2011).  I hope that by reading Dr. Kalanithi’s remarkable book, it will encourage you to listen to yourself and nurture the self-healing potential of the body. Hopefully, the future medical prescription, instead of offering  high technology and pharmaceutical solutions, will also respect and support the intrinsic self-healing processes of the body. Possibly the future prescription will read: have 8 hours sleep, take time to regenerate, learn relaxation skills, have regular meals, and nurture social connections.


Case Study: Karoshi: Death from overwork (2013). International Labour Organization.–en/index.htm

Chida, Y., Hamer, M., Wardle, J., & Steptoe, A. (2008). Do stress-related psychosocial factors contribute to cancer incidence and survival?. Nature clinical practice Oncology, 5(8), 466-475.

Denaro, N., Tomasello, L., & Russi, E. G. (2014). Cancer and stress: what’s matter? from epidemiology: the psychologist and oncologist point of view. journal of cancer therapeutics and research, 3(1), 6.

Gorter, R. & Peper, E. (2011). Fighting Cancer-A None Toxic Approach to Treatment. Berkeley: North Atlantic. ISBN: 978-1583942482

Kalanithi, P. (2016). When Breath Becomes Air. New York: Random House