This study show how cell phone radiation(microwave) cause brain cancer at rats. If microwave is dangerous for rats why is not for human? What is difference between rat and human cells, so we are protected from DNA damage?

more about this topis;

source 1

source 2

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This is not what this summary says. There is some evidence for it in male rats, but this could not be determined in female rats of mice. Sounds fishy to me. Additionally it seems that these animals where exposed to high doses of this radiation and we already know that high doses of microwave radiation can be harmful. The question is how comparable this setup is compared to everyday usage of mobile phones. Also: Brain cancers are relatively rare, if there is a widespread problem with mobile phones usage in this context, we would see it in the population data. $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Commented Nov 8, 2023 at 12:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Chris It is not true that brain cancer not rise..sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0928468014000649 $\endgroup$
    – 22flower
    Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 16:28
  • $\begingroup$ This is at least debated: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3297541 $\endgroup$
    – Chris
    Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 17:45

1 Answer 1


The full report is a PDF available here1 and as a webpage at the NCBI. It is quite technical. Much of it is written in fairly plain English, but should be read with an understanding of the scientific method and the biology associated with the study.

In the OP's linked summary, the second and third paragraphs state (my emphasis):

The exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience when using a cell phone,” said John Bucher, Ph.D., NTP senior scientist. “In our studies, rats and mice received radio frequency radiation across their whole bodies. By contrast, people are mostly exposed in specific local tissues close to where they hold the phone. In addition, the exposure levels and durations in our studies were greater than what people experience.”

The lowest exposure level used in the studies was equal to the maximum local tissue exposure currently allowed for cell phone users. This power level rarely occurs with typical cell phone use. The highest exposure level in the studies was four times higher than the maximum power level permitted.

So, in the report they looked at male and female rats and mice and concluded that for male rats alone, there was some evidence of a relationship between some cancers and radio frequency radiation (RFR) exposure for 2G and 3G transmissions. The evidence was unclear for female rats and not seen in mice, and the only clear evidence in male rats was for heart tumours.

The studies were not comparable to human exposure, because they used much higher power and very extended exposures over the whole body to get this data. In humans, most of us hold our phone to our ear only rarely (certainly not the 9 hours per day used in the study), and almost never near our heart or kidney (adrenal gland sits on top of the kidney).

The paragraph on methodology goes into it a bit more:

The animals were housed in chambers specifically designed and built for these studies. Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5 to 6 weeks old for mice, and continued for up to two years, or most of their natural lifetime. The RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling about nine hours each day. RFR levels ranged from 1.5-6 watts per kilogram in rats, and 2.5-10 watts per kilogram in mice.

As stated earlier, the power levels and duration are much higher than a typical cell phone user would ever experience, and even when they might experience such a power level, they are very very unlikely to do so for more than a small portion of the durations studied, and almost certainly not from early embryogenesis as was used for the rats.

As to exactly why these effects are not comparable to those seen in humans. The full report (linked at top of this answer) goes into this in more detail, but a summary can be made - basically it is thought that most of the effects seen and the most biologically plausible mechanism of action is heating of the affected tissues (see page 9 of the full report). Humans, being much bigger than rats experience much more localized heating and as such can absorb and dissipate greater amounts of radiation than a rat, so the effects are less.

A full review of the toxic effects of RFR has been conducted and published by the International Agency for Research on Cancer2, and for further reading see the reference section in reference 1. , Heating does not explain in full some of the effects seen and other mechanisms are being investigated, it's just that we don't currently know all the details of how RFR affects the body or even individual cell types.


  1. National Toxicology Program. NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies in Sprague Dawley (Hsd:Sprague Dawley® SD®) Rats Exposed to Whole-body Radio Frequency Radiation at a Frequency (900 Mhz) and Modulations (GSM and CDMA) Used by Cell Phones: Technical Report 595 [Internet]. Research Triangle Park (NC): National Toxicology Program; 2018 Nov. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK561730/ doi: 10.22427/NTP-TR-595

  2. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, No. 102.) Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/

  • $\begingroup$ So this is wrong? youtube.com/watch?v=BwyDCHf5iCY $\endgroup$
    – 22flower
    Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ @user628075 As stated in the answer: heating, the way it's done and the capacity to dissipate it. What's that or the question to do with cigarettes? That would need a separate question. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ If you've a question relating to something stated in the video, please ask a question (in it's own thread) related to that, ensuring to quote the salient part and reference the time signature of where it occurs in the video. Remember, comments are not for discussion, and asking people to watch an hour long video without stating which part concerns you isn't helpful. @user628075 $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 13:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .