The “Environmental Working Group” ewg.org just put out their report on the dangerous of cell phone Radio Frequency (RF) fields.  The problem is that their report either relies on very small studies that show a possible correlation with increased cancer rates but they completely omit the largest studies that found no dangers with cell phone RF fields.

The EWG makes several claims in their executive summary but they seem to contradict the larger body of evidence.  The EWG claims the following things:

EWG claim 1
“Brain cancer: Two research groups independently analyzed all data from 25 original studies of cell phone users, and identified a 50 to 90 percent increase in risk for two types of brain tumors: glioma and acoustic neuroma (Hardell 2009, Kundi 2009).”

With regard to glioma, the American Cancer Society says:
“Recent results from the Swedish Interphone study of long-term cell phone use, using a population-based case control design indicate the same conclusions. There was no association with risk of any of the brain tumor types studied (glioma or meningioma), or with duration of use, side of use, or amount of use.”

With regard to acoustic neuroma, the American Cancer Society says:
“At least 9 epidemiological studies have looked for an association between the use of cell phones and acoustic neuroma. Results of these studies have been inconsistent, due largely to variations in study design and statistical challenges posed by the rarity of these tumors. One of the largest and most recent studies analyzed data from the 5 northern European countries, and found no relation of acoustic neuroma risk with cell phone use, duration of use, or number of calls made.”

So basically, the EWG cites two small studies that show some possible dangers but they omit the larger studies that found no dangers.

EWG claim 2
“Salivary gland tumors: An Israeli study found an increased risk of 50 to 60 percent for salivary gland tumors among people with highest cell phone use (Sadetzki 2008).”

This study looked at fewer than 500 people which is a very small sample size.  This pales in comparison to the the  larger study of 420,000 Danish cell phone users who actually had a slightly lower rate of cancer than the general population.

EWG claim 3
“Behavioral problems: A study of 13,159 Danish children showed 80 percent elevated risk for emotional and hyperactivity problems among young children who use cell phones and whose mothers also used cell phones during pregnancy (Divan 2008).”

Behavior is a very complicated thing and it’s difficult to draw any conclusions based on loose correlation.

EWG claim 4
“Migraines and vertigo: A study of 420,095 Danish adults showed that long-term cell phone users were 10 to 20 percent more likely to be hospitalized for migraines and vertigo than people who took up cell phones more recently. (Schuz 2009)”

Again, these are very loose correlations on complex problems.  There are people who swear that they’re “allergic” to Wi-Fi and they have severe adverse reactions despite the fact that Wi-Fi transmit power is 200-600 times weaker than cell phones.  Yet none of them can demonstrate this allergic reaction but they’ll claim to get sick over time due to cumulative effects.

It’s also strange that the EWG makes zero mention that this study of 420,000 Danish cell phone users actually showed a slightly lower rate of cancer for cell phone users than the general population.

So what does the EWG want?  They want you to fill out their form letter to send to the FDA and FCC.  They want the exposure standards lowered and they want their members to “insist that the cell phone industry offer consumers phones that operate with the least possible radiation.”

But cell phones do operate with the least possible power levels based on how good the signal is to the tower.  The stronger the signal from the cell tower, the lower the power that your cell phone transmits at.  If the phone’s peak transmit levels are cut, they can lose a significant amount of their coverage area.  The only way to keep the phones at lower transmit power is to bring in a lot more cell phone towers but does that mean the EWG will start advocating for more cell towers?  I have my doubts, but I’ll ask them.