Dear Dr Cullen,
Thank you for your complaint regarding the 4 and 11 June two-part series of Great Moments in Science ‘5G hysteria is coming’.
In accordance with the
ABC's
complaints handling procedures, your correspondence has been referred to Audience and Consumer Affairs, a unit separate to and independent from the content making areas of the
ABC. Our role is to review and, where appropriate, investigate
complaints alleging that
ABC content has breached the
ABC's editorial standards. The
ABC's Code of Practice can be found here:
http://about.abc.net.au/reports-publications/code-of-practice/.
In the interest of fairness, Audience and Consumer Affairs have sought additional information from the program makers.
Audience and Consumer Affairs have reviewed the programs against the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy and impartiality.
We have noted your reference to “5.4 (multiple uncited statements along the lines of 'they say...')”. Sources, as contemplated by the editorial standards in this instance, would usually refer to journalistic sources rather than scholarly sources cited in academic writing. The standards address situations where individuals are providing information to the ABC which will then be used in ABC content. In those situations, identification can be important in order to allow audiences make their own determinations about how much weight to give the information provided by a particular source but nevertheless recognises the need to maintain anonymity for various reasons including safety. As such, Audience and Consumer Affairs have not investigated your complaint against standard 5.4; the issues you raise are more properly considered against the accuracy standards.
Accuracy
Audience and Consumer Affairs have reviewed the two parts of the program and your complaint as laid out against the transcript of the program against the ABC’s editorial standards for accuracy:
2.1 Make reasonable efforts to ensure that material facts are accurate and presented in context.
2.2 Do not present factual content in a way that will materially mislead the audience. In some cases, this may require appropriate labels or other explanatory information.
- “vast numbers of people have already died from various cancers given to them by the evil 5G radiation, which has apparently also killed vast swathes of forest across the world.”
The program makers have advised that concerns that 5G has causes deaths from cancer and destruction of forests were expressed to Dr Karl personally in various conversations he has had with people about the implementation of 5G.
While it is seems that Dr Karl was being hyperbolic in his usual irreverent style, Audience and Consumer Affairs accepts that some listeners would understand this statement to mean that in the short time 5G has been available in a select number of places there have been claims, however reliable and accurate, that deaths have been caused by 5G. In the interest of clarifying this the program team have added an editor’s note to the program page which reads: Editor’s note (September 2, 2019): In reviewing this episode, the program team has observed that Dr Karl Kruszelnicki’s summary of the negative hype surrounding 5G may itself have strayed into irreverent hyperbole. Although there are many worrying claims about 5G radiation – and Dr Karl has heard some of them in person from concerned members of the public – they more often suggest that the rollout of the network will cause cancer, rather than claiming it has already killed “vast numbers of people”. The anxiety about 5G is nonetheless real and our intention with these two podcast episodes was to allay some of those fears.
Given the actions taken by the program team, Audience and Consumer Affairs consider this aspect of your complaint to be resolved.
- “as the frequency gets higher, we get more cycles per second, so we can transmit more data. So it's just plain old physics that lets the 5G network transmit data to our phones at 1 Gb a second.”
Having reviewed the program, we cannot agree with your assertion that the program is misleading and ‘implies that the only way to transmit more data is to increase the transmission frequency’. In the program, Dr Karl is explaining the electromagnetic spectrum, how data is transmitted using this spectrum and the differences in functionality at different ranges of the spectrum. As Dr Karl explains it “as the frequency gets higher, we can send more information in each second, but the signal is more easily blocked by solid stuff like concrete in buildings”. Dr Karl does not state, suggest or imply that there are no other considerations in the determination of transmission capacity.
The program is speaking specifically about frequencies and how data transfers are impacted by changes in frequencies. Further, within the context of a discussion about the transition from 4G to 5G, the relevant aspect is the differences between the frequencies both 4G and 5G work on and not an in-depth analysis of whether 4G could be made faster by other means.
Finally, it is reasonable for the program makers to rely upon Dr Karl’s scientific expertise with regards to the accuracy of the discussion about the electromagnetic spectrum.
Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that audiences would not be misled and that the material facts were presented in the appropriate context.
- “In the electromagnetic spectrum, there's a very special barrier at the colour violet. It's the barrier between "ionising radiation" and "non-ionising radiation", which means it's the barrier between cancer and non-cancer.
Violet light will not damage atoms. But any radiation with a higher frequency can cause cancer.”
Again, we cannot agree with your assessment or interpretation. The program does not state that ‘ionisation is the only cancer-causing effect of ionising radiation’. What the program actually says that that “ionising radiation is well known to cause cancer”. There is a brief explanation of the term ‘ionising’ to give audiences an understanding that the difference between the two is actually based on their impact on atoms: “Well that goes back to the fact that some electromagnetic radiation is able to damage atoms. To be more specific, the damage is that the atom gets some of its electrons knocked off. An atom that has lost electrons like that is called an “ion”, so this radiation is called “ionising radiation”.”
The program also does not state, or imply, as you have claimed, that ‘ionisation is required to induce cancer’. As noted above, what is actually stated is that “ionising radiation is well known to cause cancer”, no assertion is made that all cancers are caused by ionisation. The statement that ionisation radiation is known to cause cancer does not amount to a claim that ionising radiation is required to cause cancer, nor would it be taken by reasonable listeners to be such a claim.
We have noted your reference to the IARC’s classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans. While we note the IARC’s classification, the IARC has made clear that the classification was based on a limited number of studies which showed an increased risk of glioma associated with wireless phone use, there was no determination that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, or indeed mobile phones, cause cancer. The IARC determined the evidence to be limited noting that a positive association has been observed between exposure and cancer for which a causal interpretation has been considered – not determined – but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence (
https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf).
A large part of the IARC’s consideration was the large INTERPHONE study which concluded: “Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.”
As noted in the program, a causative link between non-ionising radiation and cancer has never been proven whereas it has been clearly and repeatedly established that ionising radiation can cause cancer.
We have noted your view that ‘Kruszelnicki does not address the multitude of other potential health risks associated with non-ionising radiation from cell phone infrastructure’. The report was a consideration of the cancer risk posed by 5G. While we have noted your views, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that listeners would not be misled to understanding that any assertion was being made beyond the stated fact that ionising radiation has been shown to cause cancer whereas non-ionising radiation has never been proven to cause cancer.
For these reasons, Audience and Consumer Affairs do not consider the informal explanation of the ‘barrier’ between ionising and non-ionising radiation on the electromagnetic spectrum to be the “barrier between cancer and non-cancer” to be misleading.
- “Ultraviolet light is the weakest ionising radiation. It has a slightly higher frequency than violet light -- at around 30,000,000 GHz - and it does have enough energy to knock the electrons out of atoms. After all, we know that ultraviolet light can cause skin cancers, which is why we put on sunblock.
As we keep going through the spectrum to higher and higher frequencies we reach X-rays and finally gamma rays. These types of ionising radiation carry more energy, and if they land on human flesh, they can cause cancer. We know that both x-rays and gamma rays can cause cancer.”
The program team have noted that: “There may well be less direct mechanisms by which UV light, or other ionising radiation, can cause cancer – for example they can warm things up, and if you heat tissues enough they will burn, and this might lead to mutations and ultimately cancer. But by far the most likely, frequent and proven mechanism, which can occur at low intensities and is cited by every major cancer council and health authority, is ionisation. This radiation can directly damage DNA and DNA damage is the root cause of cancer.”
Audience and Consumer Affairs would reiterate the program does not state that ionisation is the sole cancer-causing mechanism. The program establishes that UV light has enough energy to knock electrons out of the atoms, by definition making it ionising radiation and it has been proven that UV light can cause skin cancers. Asserting something can cause skin cancers is not akin to asserting it is the only thing that causes skin cancer.
As the ionising qualities of UV light are the major factor in how UV light can cause cancer, Audience and Consumer Affairs do not consider it to be misleading to state that UV light, a well- known ionising radiation, has been proven to cause skin cancer. Further, we are satisfied that the appropriate context was provided to this statement and while you may assert that there are other mechanisms which may cause cancer, it has been clearly established by extensive scientific research the UV light, x-rays and gamma rays do cause cancer as a result of ionisation.
We have noted your comment that ‘it is well established that radiotherapy using X-rays may be effective also via non-ionising mechanisms’, however it is unclear what you are claiming to be inaccurate in the program as relates to this claim, we further note, x-rays are not non-ionising.
- “But let's go back, away from cancer land, to that tiny part near the middle of the electromagnetic spectrum which is the visible light band.
As we travel in the other direction, from violet light to red and beyond, the frequencies get lower. This is all non-ionising radiation. It does not carry enough energy to damage atoms -- so it cannot cause cancer.”
We have noted your view that ‘due to the development of understanding about the cancer-causing risks of non-ionising radiation, IARC applied the classification of 2B “Possible carcinogen”.” The IARC classification of 2B did not make a determination that non-ionising radiation causes cancer, as outlined above, the IARC classification reflected an association with an increase in glioma relating to heavy users but a causative determination could not be made.
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) states: “Acute and long-term effects of HF exposure from the use of mobile phones have been studied extensively without showing any conclusive evidence of adverse health effects.” (
https://www.icnirp.org/en/applications/mobile-phones/index.html)
The program makers have advised that a major study of epidemiological evidence in Australia about the rates of brain cancer in Australia since the introduction of mobile phones found there to be a slight rise in brain cancer rates for males but a stable rate over 30 years for females. The researchers “hypothesize that the observed increases in brain cancer incidence in Australia are related to the advent of improved diagnostic procedures when computed tomography and related imaging technologies were introduced in the early 1980s.” (
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27156022).
Having reviewed the program and with consideration for the information provided by the program team which shows that there has been no evidence that non-ionising radiation causes cancer, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the appropriate context was provided and that listeners would not be materially misled to an understanding that is not supported by the scientific evidence.
- “We have run many hundreds of studies over the last half century, and we have never been able to prove that any of these non-ionising radiations cause cancer.”
We have noted your interpretation that ‘this is utterly misleading because it is intended to ‘prove’ that non-ionising radiation has been proved safe’ however, that is not what the program says. Reasonable listeners would understand that the assertion being made is that none of the studies undertaken in the last 50 year has shown a causative link between non-ionising radiation and cancer. It is clearly framed as what has not been proven in the studies and was not a misrepresented conclusion which you allege was implied.
We have noted your reference to the ORSAA, the program makers have advised: “The ORSAA appears to be a campaign organisation and not a reputable organisation with any academic affiliations.”
Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the material fact in this statement, namely that no causative link has been proven in the multitude studies on non-ionising radiation, is accurate and presented in the appropriate context. We are further satisfied that listeners would not be misled to an understanding that a determination had been made which has not.
- “Despite hundreds of studies over the last fifty years, we have never proven that non-ionising radiation -- like mobile phones use - causes cancer. Or, as the US National Cancer Institute says "No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing [radiation] and cancer has been found."”
We have noted your reference to Dr Martin Pall’s letter to APANSA. We have further noted your reference to the Bioinitiative report. We note, the Bioinitiative Report was not peer-reviewed or published in a reputable science journal and has been heavily criticised for lacking in balance and cherry-picking the reports included to show that radiofrequency electromagnetic radiation has a biological effect.
Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that it is accurate to state that it has not been proven that non-ionising radiation causes cancer, for the reasons outlined above. Further, we are satisfied that the quote from the US National Cancer Institute was appropriately contextualised.
- “But what about the two major studies relating to non-ionising radiation and cancer, that were released by the National Institutes of Health in the USA? The ones that are mentioned every time cancer and mobile phones comes up.
One of the studies exposed rats to the electromagnetic radiation put out by mobile phones running at the relatively low frequency of 900 MHz. Some 180 male and female rats were exposed to this radiation over their whole body, not just their heads. Now the radiation levels were much higher than a human would get from their mobile phone. And the rats were exposed for nine hours a day, seven days a week for two continuous years.
Surprisingly, the male rats that were exposed to the radiation actually lived longer than the non-exposed rats. However, they did have more cancers of the heart and brain -- but weirdly, only for the male rats.”
The program makers have advised that the two studies being referred to are:
- TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES IN 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
- TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS STUDIES IN B6C3F1/N MICE EXPOSED TO WHOLE-BODY RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION AT A FREQUENCY (1,900 MHz) AND MODULATIONS (GSM AND CDMA) USED BY CELL PHONES
The fact sheet published by the National Toxicology Program states that there was clear evidence of tumours in the hearts of male rats, some evidence of tumours in the brains of male rats whereas for female rats, male mice and female mice it was unclear “whether cancers observed in the studies were associated with exposure to RFR.” The fact sheet further noted that “NTP found longer lifespans among those exposed male rats”, and while no conclusive reason was provided as to why this was the case, it is theorised that this “may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats.”
We have noted your reference to the lower birth weight in newborn rats however, we note, the study found that “a few weeks after birth body weights returned to normal and were similar to non-exposed rats.”
Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the information provided in the program accurately synthesised the findings of the study and gave the appropriate context.
We have noted your reference the ‘other effects noted in the study include “in the male group exposed to CDMA with 6 W/kg, a higher rate of natural death was observed (46%)”, we note this statement was not in the final report but was in the reviewer’s comments section of the partial findings draft. It was not part of the final report and not including a comment from a peer reviewer on a draft partial report does not amount to a misleading interpretation of the study’s conclusions.
- “The other study exposed 180 male and female mice to another frequency used by mobile phones - 1900 MHz.
Again they were exposed to very high levels of radiation, for approximately nine hours each day, seven days per week, for two continuous years. And again, the male mice that were exposed to radiation lived longer than the control mice that were not exposed. And - the male mice that were irradiated had higher levels of cancers -- this time in the skin and lungs. But in this study, the female mice that were exposed to radiation didn't get off scot free. They had higher levels of malignant lymphomas.
Wait a minute -- that sounds like evidence that non-ionising radiation can cause cancer, right?
Well, when you look at the actual statistics, the numbers of rats with cancer were all very low -- all in the single digits. This is a very small sample size. And that's a big problem.”
We have noted your reference to the fact sheet which clearly states with regards to the study on mice: “male and female mice, it was unclear, also known as equivocal, whether cancers observed in the studies were associated with exposure to RFR.”
Dr Karl’s explanation of the findings offers a more nuanced understanding than what was provided in the fact sheet which does not attribute the cancers in mice to the exposure to RFR, but also does not explain that some mice were found to have lymphoma, skin and lung cancers. Dr Karl acknowledges that there are incidents of cancers in both male and female mice but explains that the findings are not conclusive or attributed to exposure to RFR – as is expressed in the fact sheet – and notes the small sample size.
The results summary from the study on mice states: “There were higher rates of survival in males at the low (2.5 W/kg) and mid (5 W/kg) exposures to CDMA - and GSM-modulated RFR, respectively. Body weights in the exposed groups of animals were similar to their controls. In both studies (GSM and CDMA), there were higher incidences of malignant lymphoma in all groups of female mice exposed to RFR compared to controls. However, the incidences in all of the exposed females were within the range historically observed in this strain of mouse in other NTP studies. There were higher incidences of skin and lung tumors in males exposed to the highest two levels of GSM-modulated RFR (5 and 10 W/kg), and of liver tumors at the mid-dose (5 W/kg) of CDMA-modulated RFR.”
Having reviewed the content of the program, the fact sheet and the results sections of the study; Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the summary provided by Dr Karl is not misleading as to the findings of the study and was placed in the appropriate context.
- “So the results are still fuzzy – we need a bigger sample size.”
While you may disagree with Dr Karl’s analysis, as a well-credentialed scientist it was reasonable for the program to rely on his expertise to offer his view that a larger sample size is needed to draw more definitive conclusions.
- “And on average the radiation-exposed mice did live longer.”
We have noted your reference to the fact sheet’s ‘surprise findings’ but we note this was in relation to male rats whereas in this section of the program Dr Karl was discussing the findings relating to male mice, not male rats. It was not appropriate to focus on the finding of ‘clear evidence of tumours in the hearts of male rats’ when discussing the findings relating to male mice.
- “However, this study is usually misquoted as showing that the radiation from mobile phones causes cancer in humans AND reduces our life expectancy.”
We have noted your views. However, Audience and Consumer Affairs do not consider it to be misleading or inaccurate to reiterate that the findings relating to rats and mice are not directly applicable to humans especially given exposure levels and duration of exposure was much greater than what a human would receive. Dr Karl was noting that using these studies to assert that mobile phones cause cancer in humans and reduce human life expectancy is inaccurate and misleading. We accept that you may disagree with Dr Karl as to the applicability of the two studies nevertheless, there is a clear context for Dr Karl to question the use of these studies to assert that mobile phones can cause cancer in humans and reduce human life expectancy.
- “Surprisingly, according to the New York Times, a major source of disinformation about the 5G network has been the Russian TV network, simply called RT.”
While we have noted your views and comments, it was clear that Dr Karl was directly referring to the New York Times article which outlined how RT has been spreading dubious claims unsupported by science using titles like: ‘a Dangerous Experiment on Humanity’; ‘5G Apocalypse’; ‘Could 5G Put More Kids At Risk For Cancer?’; ‘5G Tech is ‘Crime Under International Law’’; ‘Totally Insane: Telecomm Industry Ignores 5G Dangers’. (
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/12/science/5g-phone-safety-health-russia.html).
We accept that you may disagree with the New York Times’ report, or may agree with the coverage from RT, however, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the New York Times reporting was appropriately identified and referred to and the content of the reporting was contextualised and attributed.
We have noted your reference to the February 6, 2019 hearing “Winning the Race to 5G and the Next Era of Technology Innovation in the United States”. It is unclear what relevance the clip you have provided has to the New York Times article however we note, it was 5-minute clip taken from an over 2-hour hearing.
Your views, opinions and perspectives have been noted by our unit however, after reviewing the program and with consideration for the additional information provided by the program team, Audience and Consumer Affairs have determined that your complaint is not upheld. We note, part of your complaint has been resolved with the inclusion of an Editor’s Note on the program page.
IMPARTIALITY
Audience and Consumer Affairs have reviewed the program and assessed the contents against the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality:
4.1 Gather and present news and information with due impartiality.
4.4 Do not misrepresent any perspective.
4.5 Do not unduly favour one perspective over another.
The ABC has a statutory duty to ensure that the gathering and presentation of news and information is impartial according to the recognised standards of objective journalism. The ABC aims to present fair and unbiased information which will help audiences gain a reasonable understanding of the issue and equip them to make up their own minds on the issues.
The Editorial Policies make clear that the ABC aims to apply its impartiality standard guided by the hallmarks for impartiality:
- a balance that follows the weight of evidence;
- fair treatment;
- open-mindedness; and
- opportunities over time for principal relevant perspectives on matters of contention to be expressed.
The Editorial Policies further elaborate that assessing the impartiality due in given circumstances requires consideration in context of all relevant factors including:
- the type, subject and nature of the content;
- the circumstances in which the content is made and presented;
- the likely audience expectation of the content;
- the degree to which the matter to which the content relates is contentious;
- the range of principal relevant perspectives on the matter of contention; and
- the timeframe within which it would be appropriate for the ABC to provide opportunities for the principal relevant perspectives to be expressed, having regard to the public importance of the matter of contention and the extent to which it is the subject of current debate.
Of particular importance in assessing the impartiality of the 2-part series of Great Moments in Science ‘5G hysteria is coming…’ is the guiding principle that “balance follows the weight of evidence”.
Great Moments in Science are very short episodes where Dr Karl summarises the science on various topics. In such short episodes, it would be impossible to canvass every aspect on a topic as large as scientific studies into non-ionising radiation. Dr Karl sought to summarise and synthesize the information for listeners to better understand the scientific consensus. As the program specifically poses the question “so what about the big cancer scare”, it sought to focus on the relationship between cancer and 5G radio signals.
We have noted your reference to the 2011 IARC decision to classify radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as a Group 2B possible human carcinogen. As noted above, the finding was based on limited evidence of an increased risk for glioma associated with heavy wireless phone use. Further, the evidence presented to the working group was “inadequate to draw conclusion for other types of cancers”.
We further note IARC findings have been criticised for determining classifications based on strength of evidence rather than the degree of risk posed.
Other agencies have also noted the increased risk of glioma associated with heavy wireless phone use while raising the appropriate questions about the methodology. The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) conducted a literature review and in their 2014 report concluded that “It is clear from the published literature that no overall increase in the risk of brain tumour or acoustic neuroma due to the use of wireless phones has been observed. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma and acoustic neuroma in the sub-group with the heaviest use however methodological shortcomings prevent a causal connection. The long-term risk affecting individuals who report heavy use will require further research.” (
http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ARPANSARadionFrequencyHealthReportPage29.pdf).
The program team have advised Audience and Consumer Affairs that to merely state the IARC’s Group 2B classification without providing listeners with a fully formed understanding that the categorisation does not account for the degree of risk would be irresponsible. Audience and Consumer Affairs agree that to not provide listeners with the appropriate context to understand the classification could be misleading. Further, given this determination was based on studies conducted relating to previous generations of mobile phone technology, to equate these limited findings as being unquestionably applicable to 5G technology could be misguided.
So, the program considered radiofrequency electromagnetic fields more broadly. Explaining first, the electromagnetic spectrum, where on that spectrum 5G will fall and the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. Having established that the frequencies 5G operate on are within the non-ionising range, the program moved on the explaining the scientific studies into whether non-ionising radiation – and mobile phone radiation specifically – have been shown to cause cancer. It is clearly stated that no causative link has been shown between non-ionising radiation and cancer.
When specifically considering whether the radiation given off by mobile phones can cause cancer the program explained the recent US National Toxicology Program study in some detail. The discussion explained that the study found male rats to exhibit more cancers of the heart and brain. The program also noted that the mice were found to have cancer of skin, lungs and malignant lymphoma despite the conclusion drawn by the study that these findings could not be attributed to the exposure to mobile phone radiation.
The weight of scientific evidence is that while ionising radiation can cause cancer, no similar finding has ever been made regarding non-ionising radiation. There have been studies which have shown an association between certain types of cancers and mobile phone radiation, which are referred to in the program, but these studies have not provided a causative link and have been criticised for methodological flaws.
As such, Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the program presented the scientific findings relating to non-ionising radiation and cancer with due impartiality and given the weight of evidence, the favouring of the perspective that non-ionising radiation does not cause cancer was not undue in the context. Audience and Consumer Affairs are satisfied that the program kept with the ABC’s editorial standards for impartiality.
While we have not upheld your complaint, please be assured that your concerns have been thoroughly considered by our unit and the ABC Science team.
Should you be dissatisfied with this response, you may be able to pursue aspects of your
complaint with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (
www.acma.gov.au).
Thank you for contacting the ABC.
Yours sincerely,
Reena Rihan
Audience and Consumer Affairs
