A recent study by US economists demonstrates “that mobile phone subscription rates are positively and  statistically significantly associated with death rates from brain cancer 15-20 years later” (Mialon, and Nesson,  2019). This 25-year cross country analysis provides solid evidence of the link between mobile phone use and  cancer of the central nervous system (CNS) when positioned alongside epidemiological studies. Brain tumours  and other cancers of the CNS have long been linked with RFR exposure: The challenge for scientists is to prove  the link. This, unfortunately, is not an easy thing to do: However, recent research provided “clear evidence” of  this relationship.
On November 1 st 2018, the final report of a 10-year $30m comprehensive study by US National Institute of  Environmental Health Sciences’ National Toxicology Program (NTP) confirmed that radiofrequency radiation  from 2G and 3G cell phones caused cancer in animals exposed in the near field (National Toxicology
Programme 2018a). That study refutes the long-held theory that non-ionizing radiation, such as RFR, cannot  cause DNA damage and related cancers or lead to other effects on the health and well-being of the animals  studied, and human beings by extrapolation (National Toxicology Programme, 2018b). In their peer-reviewed  publication on the NTP study in 2020, 11 distinguished scientists concluded “that exposure to RFR is associated  with an increase in DNA damage” (Smith-Roe., et al. 2020, p. 220).
In a separate ground-breaking study at the world-renowned Ramazzini Institute study involving 17 world-class  scientists, Falcioni et al. (2018, p. 496) found that “far field exposure to RFR [that] are consistent with and
reinforce the results of the NTP study on near field exposure, as both reported an increase in the incidence of  tumors of the brain and heart in RFR-exposed Sprague-Dawley rats. These tumors are of the same histotype of  those observed in some epidemiological studies on cell phone users. These experimental studies provide  sufficient evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of  RFR in humans.” Again to emphasize, this study is notable as it focused on the health implications of far-field  RFR sources on humans living or working in the proximity of mobile phone base stations, as opposed to  operating 2 & 3 G handsets near field. Peleg, Nativ and Richter (2018) prove that occupational exposure to  RFR, at levels well-below ICNIRP guidelines, increased the risk and incidence of hematolymphatic (HL)  cancers in military and occupational settings. They prove that RFR exposure was associated with, and  significantly increased, HL cancer risk in the four groups studied across three countries: the findings  demonstrated a cause-effect relationship between RFR and cancer (ibid).  In his critical review of both the above studies, former ICNIRP commissioner James Lin (2019, p. 19) concluded  that: “The time is right for the IARC to upgrade its previous epidemiology based classification of RF exposure  to higher levels in terms of the carcinogenicity of RF radiation for humans.” This is clear and unambiguous as  the findings of both the NTP and Ramazzini Institute studies that provided “clear evidence,” the highest burden
of scientific proof possible concerning the carcinogenicity of RFR (Melnick, 2019).

After more than 25 years of widespread cell phone use, one would expect to see a rise in cancers, particularly brain tumours. The evidence here is mounting: Take for example new studies in the US note a disturbing rise
in cancers of the Central Nervous System, particularly in adolescents. There is also a marked increase in other  cancers. Nevertheless, while recent research has provided “clear evidence” of a link between RFR and cancers  in laboratory animals, epidemiological studies have yet to provide conclusive evidence of an increase in the
incidence, prevalence, and mortality rates in humans of cancers directly linked with RFR from 2-4G and  wireless devices. There are several reasons for this. One of the chief explanations is the fact that it typically
takes between 20 or 30 years for many types of cancers to develop following exposure to a carcinogen, and for  epidemiological data to reflect this and to enable risk assessment viz. well-designed studies “require  populations that are followed for at least 20 years, preferably 30 or more” (Michaels, 2008). That has not been  the case with extant or industry-sponsored studies (cf. Belpomme et al., 2018): Thus, the findings and  conclusions drawn from “observations [of such studies] may be premature, as cell phone use has become  commonplace only within the past two decades, a period of time that may be insufficient to accurately assess  cancer-related outcomes” (Smith-Roe, 2020).
There are other problems with extant studies which the telecoms industry and ICNIRP claim show little or no  risk: “Generally speaking, a poorly conducted study is more likely to result in a false negative (that is it fails to  find a risk that is actually present) than in a false positive (mistakenly identifying and excess risk when none in  fact exists). For the results of a negative study to be taken seriously, the study must be large and sensitive and  gather accurate exposure data” (Michaels, 2008). It is clear from the research literature that poorly conducted,  biased or manipulated studies are more likely to produce false negatives and show no effect, than robust rigorous  studies which tend to show positive links between environmental toxins and health risks and demonstrate the
existence of effects. Thus, Miller et al. (2018) argue that epidemiological studies that result in false negatives  may have significant flaws, indicating the need for additional “epidemiological studies of brain cancer to be  carried out [that] should include validated measures of exposure and/or biomarkers of possible impact of RFR  on biological processes.” Nonetheless, a recent review of 24 epidemiological case-controlled studies illustrated  an increased risk of gliomas and other brain tumours with long-term exposure to RFR from mobile phones  (Bortkiewicz, Gadzicka, and Szymczak, 2017).

Michaels (2008) illustrates that if epidemiological studies of general populations are not possible where  carcinogens or toxins are concerned, then the approach scientists and regulators take is to study sub-populations  in an industry: “Much of what we know about the toxic effects of common environmental exposures, especially
airborne exposures, comes from the study of workers.” The study by Peleg, Nativ and Richter (2018) provides
“clear evidence” of industrial exposure to RFR, within ICNIRP guidelines, and the incidence of  hematolymphatic (HL) cancers in military and occupational settings. This study concludes that: “The consistent
association of RFR and highly elevated HL cancer risk in the four groups spread over three countries, operating  different RFR equipment types and analyzed by different research protocols, suggests a cause-effect relationship  between RFR and HL cancers in military/occupational settings” (Peleg, Nativ and Richter, 2018). They add  that: “Overall, the epidemiological studies on excess risk for HL and other cancers together with brain tumors  in cellphone users and experimental studies on RFR and carcinogenicity make a coherent case for a cause-effect relationship and classifying RFR exposure as a human carcinogen (IARC group 1).” In order to provide  support for the thesis that RFR poses a real and present danger to human health, a short review of recent 
epidemiological evidence is instructive and heightens the need for a precautionary approach by policymakers  to protect public health (Miller et al., 2018).