did not want, and which the registry would not have given us
anyway, was anything that could identify the individual: their
name, address, hospital number and so on. This information
is, of course, strictly protected to maintain privacy.
But to get the information from the Registry, we had to
tell them what we would use it for and get ethical approval
from our university. Fortunately this was relatively simple as
we were not asking for any identiiable information, and the
study did not involve direct contact with patients to review
medical records or conduct interviews. Any substantial study
involving interviews with patients, travelling to different hospi-
tals, or other expenses requires an application for funding,
which is almost always a very slow and uncertain process. It may
even take longer than doing the research itself. So the ethical
approval process was simple, and we did not require any
funding.
The research itself involved getting the data from the cancer
registry and analysing it, so Stella had to learn several statistical
techniques. She also had to learn a lot about brain cancer, such
as the areas of the brain most likely to be affected by radiation
from a mobile phone. And she also had to learn about mobile
phones, electromagnetic energy and so on.
In addition, Stella had to review the literature on the issue
of mobile phones and brain tumours. This is very complex;
there are many epidemiological studies of different designs,
some strong and some weak, and often with conlicting results.
While she didn’t have to review the information in so much
detail, she had to understand how the results of animal exper-
iments and cellular and metabolic studies using radio frequency
energy contributed to the evidence.
In the end, Stella ran a lot of different analyses. We ended
up concentrating on the speciic type of cancer that earlier
studies had identiied as the main source of risk – a cancer not
of neurons but of glial cells that support the neurons – and
the two regions of the brain that would be most heavily exposed
to energy from a cell phone.
Even then we had several age ranges, and of course data for
men and women separately. One of the major issues in inter-
pretation is that you may ind a trend in one age range and
one gender, and not ind it in other groups. So although the
inal paper seems relatively straightforward and has only a few
results, Stella’s Honours dissertation includes a lot more results.
While we did not ind an association between the use of
mobile phones and the incidence of brain cancer, this doesn’t
mean that mobile phone usage cannot possibly increase the
incidence. In fact, we need to think about what the latency
period for the effect of mobile phone usage would need to be
for the increase not to show up in our study.
Stella Kim is a research student supervised by Mark Elwood, who is Professor of Cancer
Epidemiology at The University of Auckland’s School of Population Health.APRIL 2016|| 35Wi-Fi Fears Disputed
The ABC’s science program Catalystdrew
widespread criticism after giving precedence
to the views of US cancer epidemiologist
Dr Devra Davis in an episode that examined
“whether our wireless devices could be
putting our health at risk”.
“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 radiofrequency
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 radiofrequency 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. For further information about the international consensus view
in this area, you may find the website of the International Commission
on Non-Ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) of interest
(www.icnirp.org)."
Professor Rodney Croft is Director of the National Health & Medical Research Council’s
Centre for Research Excellence in Electromagnetic Energy, is a current ICNIRP
Commissioner, and Professor of Health Psychology at University of Wollongong.
“During the program Prof Davis claims that the Australian brain
cancer incidence rates (a graph was shown) cannot be used as
evidence of no problem because brain cancer latency is 40 years. This
firstly contradicts her own argument then, because she spends a lot
of time saying current studies are showing increased cancer risk!
“Secondly, Dr Davis' claims are incorrect, since solid tumours have
a much shorter minimum latency (tinyurl.com/hgnsxwp). This means
we should be seeing increased rates now if there was an association.
This reference also contradicts her claims that there are no
environmental tumors that occur before 10 years.”
Dr Geza Benke is a Senior Research Fellow in the School of Public Health and Preventive
Medicine at Monash UniversityEXPERT OPINION
Australian Science Media CentreRRegister for emailupdates
at austscience.com