Although the actual physiological effects of TCDD toxicity in humans remain a matter of debate, in 1997 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) upgraded the classification of TCDD from a Group 2B possible carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) in humans to a Group 1 known carcinogen in humans.
Late last month, the organisation's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) decided to classify radio-frequency electromagnetic fields (ie, radio waves) as "a possible carcinogenic to humans" based on a perceived risk of glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer.
The Group 2B classification the IARC has now adopted for mobile phones refers to "possible", not "probable" (Group 2A) nor "proven" (Group 1), carcinogens and ranks the mobile phone's health risk alongside the chance of getting cancer from coffee, petrol fumes and surgical implants such as stents and false teeth.
Indeed, by classifying mobile phones as a Group 2B risk, what the IARC was effectively saying (and the California Council on Science and Technology implying) was that, even if such a health risk exists, there is no way of ruling out bias, chance or other confounding circumstance with any reasonable degree of confidence.
According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), part of the World Health Organisation (WHO), low- and middle-income countries accounted for 57% of the 14m people diagnosed with cancer worldwide in 2012 but 65% of the deaths.
In May 2010, following a landmark, decade-long study undertaken by teams in 13 countries, the IARC reported that no adverse health effects could be associated with the use of mobile phones.
As for the heating effects of radio waves, the increase in temperature of the skin caused by holding a phone close to the ear was found to be an order of magnitude less than that caused by direct sunlight.The Group 2B classification the IARC has now adopted for mobile phones designates them as "possible", rather than "probable" (Group 2A) or "proven" (Group 1) carcinogens.
Indeed, by classifying mobile phones as a Group 2B risk, what the IARC was effectively saying (and the California Council on Science and Technology implying) was that, even if such a health risk exists, there is no way of ever ruling out bias, chance or other confounding circumstance with any reasonable degree of confidence.
Julio Frenk, the dean of the Harvard School of Public Health, says attitudes are similar to those towards AIDS in the 1980s, when treatment for the poor was deemed impractical or unaffordable.Anti-cancer efforts are in fact very good value for money, says Christopher Wild, the director of IARC.
In 1994, based on information from rodent studies, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) listed acrylamide as a probable carcinogen in humans.
(Probable carcinogens are designated Group 2A by the IARC; Group 1 contains compounds known to be carcinogenic in humans, whereas Group 2A compounds are probably carcinogenic and Group 2B compounds are possibly carcinogenic).
