Do mobile phones cause cancer?
Coronavirus and cancer
We know it’s a worrying time for people with cancer, we have information to help. If you have symptoms of cancer contact your doctor.
No. So far, the best scientific evidence shows that using mobile phones does not increase the risk of cancer.
There also aren't any good explanations for how mobile phones could cause cancer. The radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation that mobile phones or phone masts transmit and receive is non-ionising and is very weak. This non-ionising radiation does not have enough energy to damage DNA and cannot directly cause cancer.
But research is still continuing, to make sure there aren’t any potential long-term effects. And we continue to monitor any new evidence.
Can 4G or 5G mobile networks cause cancer?
4G or 5G networks rely on radio waves to work just like older mobile phone networks. The difference with 4G or 5G networks is that they use higher frequency waves than older mobile networks, but they still don’t have enough energy to damage DNA to cause cancer.
As 4G or 5G technologies are still relatively new, research into this field is still ongoing.
There are many cancer myths that haven’t been proven to cause cancer. However, there are proven causes of cancer, and things you can do to reduce your risk. Follow this link to find out more.
We regularly review and evaluate newly published research into the causes of cancer in order to shape our health information. And there are key things we look out for to evaluate any new study.
What type of study is it?
Was the study looking at cells in a dish, animals or people? Studies in animals and cells can help scientists understand the basics of cancer but they cannot replicate how things will work in humans.
So, we focus more on studies in people as they can show with much more certainty how something affects the risk of developing cancer in humans. The best studies also account for other factors that could affect someone’s cancer risk, such as whether they smoke or drink.
How many people were in the study, and how long were they followed for? Studies involving only a handful of people aren’t likely to be as reliable, because results are more likely to happen by chance. And studies that only follow people for a short timeframe can miss any potential long-term effects. Therefore, we mainly look at studies that follow hundreds or usually thousands of people for a long time because they give results we can be surer of.
Who carried out the study and where is it published?
It’s important to see if a study was published in a scientific journal and was carried out by scientists that work for a university or known institute. This is because before researchers can publish their findings in a journal, other experts who were not involved in the study will check it is accurate.
How does the study fit in with previous evidence?
Some studies show conflicting results, but we evaluate any new study within the context of all the available research and give more weight to the most rigorous scientific studies.
How to spot fake news about cancer?
Sometimes news outlets can over-inflate stories about cancer, whether it’s a new treatment, or news on what could lower or increase your risk of developing the disease. You can use the same questions we discussed above to judge a study and news story yourself. For more tips on how to spot fake news visit our blog here.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 2: radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. IARC Monograph - Vol 102. 2013.
International Agency for Research on Cancer. Non-Ionizing Radiation, Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields. IARC Monograph - Vol 80. 2002.
Advisory Group on Non-ionising Radiation (AGNIR). Comprehensive review on mobile phone technologies finds no solid evidence of health effects. Heal Prot Agency. 2012 ; (Accessed October 2019).
Amoon AT, Crespi CM, Ahlbom A, et al. Proximity to overhead power lines and childhood leukaemia: an international pooled analysis. Br J Cancer. May 2018:1. doi:10.1038/s41416-018-0097-7