…and this is a 
The World Health Organization had a recent meeting in which the feeble data suggesting a possible link between cell phones was reworked and massaged, and have now come up with a press release in which they announce that maybe possibly cell phones could increase the frequencies of certain kinds of cancers. My doubts are massive. My willingness to accept this conclusion is not helped by arguments like these.
"What microwave radiation does in most simplistic terms is similar to what happens to food in microwaves, essentially cooking the brain," Black said. "So in addition to leading to a development of cancer and tumors, there could be a whole host of other effects like cognitive memory function, since the memory temporal lobes are where we hold our cell phones."
Is anyone out there really chatty? Could you call up my microwave breakfast burrito and yak at it for a while? How long do you think it will take, I'm getting hungry?
That is simply sensationalistic nonsense. No, your cell phone doesn't cook your brain. When was the last time you saw someone with a cell phone burn on their face? "Cooking" has rather more obvious effects than the kinds of subtle, difficult-to-detect, epidemiological results the press release describes. There could be a real effect — you are, after all, holding a small transmitter of electromagnetic radiation right next to your skull — but previous studies have been all over the map and lack any consistency, but generally fall on the side of no observable effect. People have done things like stick cell phones on top of petri dishes of cultured human cells, and nope, the cells don't cook, they live and thrive just fine, and most studies report no change in cellular activity (some have reported a slight increase in activity).
Maybe this one, representing a coalition of many researchers in many countries gathering together to share data, has finally found a smoking gun? I don't know. One problem here is that all we've got is a brief press release, no data, with a promise of a scientific paper to be published in The Lancelet Oncology in a few days. Here, almost nothing is reported: they have a one paragraph conclusion.
The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate. The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period).
"Limited" and "inadequate" are the strongest words they use to describe their own data. They mention one study with the strongest effect…in other words, they highlight the outlier. That's odd and makes me instantly suspicious.
Also, I recognize those numbers: this is a reworking of the INTERPHONE study from last year, in which the final conclusion was that there was no credible evidence of a cancer risk. What happened? Why has their assessment changed? There is no explanation. That study had methodological problems that an epidemiologist for Nature summarized this way:
"There are standard criteria for assessing whether data from epidemiological studies show causality or not," says Swerdlow. "The results for this study don't get close to passing the standard tests for whether the results show causation."
I'm going to agree with Orac on this one: not very likely. Show me some new evidence, maybe I'll change my mind.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Posted by: Brian
|
June 1, 2011 9:28 AM
I dunno. Based on anecdotal evidence, I have no problem thinking that people walking around with cell phones glued to their heads suffer from brain cancer.
Posted by: Curt Cameron
|
June 1, 2011 9:28 AM
Right before that first paragraph you quoted, the article explicitly says that cell phone radiation is non-ionizing. That means it can't break chemical bonds like those in DNA, therefore it can't cause cancer.
So in the paragraph you quoted, why do they say "in addition to leading to... cancer and tumors"? They just got through saying it doesn't do that.
And there's a possibility that the heat causes cognitive/memory problems by heating up your brain? If that's the case, then we need to ban hair dryers, because those pump about 10,000 times the heat into your skull that a cell phone does. And ban going out in the sunlight for God's sake.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
June 1, 2011 9:29 AM
You haven't sorted out cause and effect there.
Posted by: Shriketastic
|
June 1, 2011 9:29 AM
I'd be far more worried about the radiation from the computers we're constantly surrounded by than from cell-phones.
The human race has built themselves into a giant cage of radio-transmitting objects that you literally have to go into the middle of the ocean to get away from it all, and odds are even then you're stuck with it because the boat your own will have a huge radio mast.
So, honestly, phones are the least of our worries.
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/rmTtrfAMp.wJOKajTCnmgHw7HOE-#e9f78
|
June 1, 2011 9:34 AM
Cell phones can be VERY dangerous.
When used while driving.
Especially when, at the same time, one is also trying to light a cigarette, while eating a too large slice of pizza.
It doesn't always take cancer to get killed.
Posted by: llewelly
|
June 1, 2011 9:39 AM
Brian | June 1, 2011 9:28 AM:
Their problems are due to the conversation, not the radiation.
Posted by: JackC
|
June 1, 2011 9:43 AM
Let me start by saying I have been involved with Cellular technology (in several major companies, usually on the Engineering side) since the late '90s. I can continue with noting that I am an Amateur Radio op (ham) and my work in the Navy was primarily radio related.
"Microwaves" indicate a (huge) range of frequencies - generally as large as between 1Ghz and 100Ghz.
A "Microwave Oven" uses a tight frequency specifically tuned (I am being quite rough here) to excite water and heat food. Slightly above or below this frequency, it doesn't work very well.
The cellular industry has been attacked with this idea for - well, ever. I had the opportunity once to visit the home of a person in a co-op building. He was concerned that a Cell antenna had been mounted on the building just above his bedroom window. I was able to show that signals from NYC were actually considerably stronger - and on near frequencies - than his personal antenna.
There are so many "common misconceptions" about cellular, radio frequencies and cellular effect, it's sometimes difficult to just keep up.
JC
Posted by: Brian
|
June 1, 2011 9:43 AM
llewelly:
Sarchasim
Posted by: Pete Moulton
|
June 1, 2011 9:44 AM
I'm signing on with yahoomess @ 5 here. I haven't done a statistical analysis on this (yet!), but just on an anecdotal level the vast majority of traffic stupidities I've seen in the last five years or so have been committed by morons with cellphones stuck in their ears, and their attention somewhere far up their asses.
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 1, 2011 9:45 AM
I'll get worried about cell phones cooking my brain when the microwaves start causing my metal fillings to arc.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
June 1, 2011 9:45 AM
The whole business of using fancy statistical techniques to torture tiny "possible effects" out of ludicrously inadequate data sets is fundamentally fraudulent. This kind of horseshit epidemiology has become a big industry full of people who constantly have to be on the lookout for something that can be published in order to keep their cushy jobs. The resulting ever-changing "recommendations" just serve to undermine the public's confidence in the entire public health system. The field is past due for a major housecleaning.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 1, 2011 9:45 AM
Sigh! This has to be one of the stupidest recurring ideas in circulation today. No real evidence, no mechanism, no clue, but jelly-spined bureaucrats decide to "err on the side of caution".
Hey, WHO! Fuck you, you anti-science fucksticks.
Posted by: Blondin
|
June 1, 2011 9:46 AM
If this nonsense keeps up we may see a cell-phone related case of "head asplody" from Bob Park.
Posted by: AJS
|
June 1, 2011 9:47 AM
I suspect there is a large pork barrel for funding these studies .....
Posted by: Schenck
|
June 1, 2011 9:47 AM
If WHO's official position is that cell phones cause cancer, are they going to prohibit cell phone use for their employees? Can an employee that develops these types of cancers and has a work issued cell phone sue WHO?
What about second hand cell phone radiation? Heck what about the EM radiation associated with power lines running through their buildings? Or broadcast into the surrounding neighborhood from any WiFi routers they maintain?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip
|
June 1, 2011 9:48 AM
@Curt Cameron: Mandatory beer hats to cool your brain.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
|
June 1, 2011 9:50 AM
I totally believe that if you take a cell phone that puts out 1100 watts of power, and put in a tuned cavity along with your head (your head may have to be cut off to render this practical), it would cook your brains.
A quarter watt? Out in the open air? Not so much.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
June 1, 2011 9:50 AM
It's a class 2B carcinogen, which means:
Other class 2B carcinogens: coffee, diesel fuel, and pickled vegetables (especially in Asia)
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 1, 2011 9:51 AM
WHO are being accomondationist to idiots.
Phase 1: Support a stupid idea
Let me know what their phase 2 is for actually convincing people to abandon this stupid idea.
Posted by: Alverant
|
June 1, 2011 9:56 AM
I'm with Brian. With the way people talk and drive with those dang things glued to their ears, something is wrong.
It's too bad this study is fundamentally flawed. It casts doubt on real studies and science in general. Plus it takes away one of my excuses for not having a cell phone period.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 1, 2011 9:56 AM
Wait
WHAT?
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Posted by: Victor
|
June 1, 2011 10:00 AM
The temperature increases theorized are in the area of a degree or less, not enough to actually cook anything. I'm not sure how this is supposed to trigger cancer but, no, it wouldn't create a little cooked region on your face or in your brain. I had a tester with brain simulant sitting behind my bench for a couple of year. It's essentially hypersensitive thermometer siting in an orb of super saturated sugar, which is supposed to be pretty close to brain matter as far as energy absorption. We use it for other devices, but I've stuck my cell phone in it. The effects were well below the safety limits.
Posted by: bjorn.verryt
|
June 1, 2011 10:02 AM
I've been trying hard to understand the reason behind this press release, and this is the best I can come up with.
The WHO got tired of all of the conspiracy theories ("it's all a cover-up!") and decided to announce to the world that, yes, this thing is being studied and no, no conclusive evidence yet.
Posted by: havlak
|
June 1, 2011 10:03 AM
#5 has the right approach.
It's tedious to prove zero risk, and unconvincing to the average consumer, because nothing is risk-free. But even if one believed the stupendously weak evidence for causation here, you'd be much better off just hanging up while you drive...
or not driving at all (at least if you're in Copenhagen)...
to reduce your odds of icky death.
Keeping real dangers in perspective, the bigger risk is not having a life.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
June 1, 2011 10:08 AM
@Rev BDC:
Yup. Pickled vegetables may cause cancer. Oh, and alcohol is a Class 1 carcinogen.
Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
June 1, 2011 10:12 AM
Shriketastic
Radio waves are even lower energy than microwaves; I would consider them even less likely to damage human tissue than microwaves emitted from cell phones.
The thing that scares me orders of magnitude more than either of these 'threats', is the giant UV source at the center of our solar system. UV can cause dimerization of certain nucleotides, like thiamine, and is well known to cause deadly skin cancers like melanoma. If WHO really wants to adjutate against an an insidious, ever-present threat, then maybe they should be campaigning for a giant lampshade for the sun. At least that threat would be a real one.
Curt Cameron
Its true that microwaves are non-ionizing, but so is UV. The difference is that UV can be absorbed by molecules in a way that leads to the promotion of electrons from lower to higher energy levels, leading to certain kinds of reactions.
Microwaves are similar to IR in that when they are absorbed by molecules they simply increase molecular movement. Alleged non-thermal effects of microwaves on the rate of various reactions have been tested, but no one has ever come up with corroborating evidence; it appears that microwaves are effective at heating alone. Which makes it even more difficult to devise a plausible mechanism by which microwaves could damage DNA or otherwise modulate cellular function than your comment suggests.
Just FYI
Posted by: Shriketastic
|
June 1, 2011 10:20 AM
I just used it as an example because there's probably a hundred times more radio-wave activity going through us than cell-phone "radiation" every single day.
As to the rest of it; yeah, the sun is a giant nuclear reactor constantly shooting radiation and mutating particles at our little planet. People who worry about cellphones should be shitting their pants when they think about the sun.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 1, 2011 10:22 AM
Cell phones? meh
It's teh EBIL WI-FI we need to be worried about.
That shit will roast your noggin.
Posted by: defides
|
June 1, 2011 10:30 AM
There are teenagers in this world who have been phoning and texting for hours every day since they were about 6 years old. If there were really a risk from mobile phones, it would have become obvious by now.
But - I heard somebody on BBC Radio 4 gabbing about this and it sounded like he was about to make the 'special sensitivity' argument - you know, most people are OK but some people are particularly sensitive to EMR and it's those people we have to protect. Meh.
Posted by: DeePhlat
|
June 1, 2011 11:07 AM
Pfft. Next they're going to tell us that beaming Geico commercials into my brain while I sleep with a gamma ray satellite causes cancer. I'm on to your game, science.
Posted by: Bodach
|
June 1, 2011 11:11 AM
I will soon have available on the market finely crafted aluminium "caps", if you will, which will totally and completely block all radiation and their cancer components*. Price to be determined by demand.
*also stops the voices
Posted by: Tony Jolley
|
June 1, 2011 11:20 AM
Strangely enough, I hardly ever use my phone to make actual voice phone calls, and even then it's usually on speakerphone over my car's stereo.
I think of my phone as a very small computer that can make the occasional phone call.
Posted by: Timberwoof
|
June 1, 2011 11:35 AM
I was surfing across cable TV the other day when I caught some white-haired guy chatting about this with an anchor-babe and a clueless guest. They talked about mitigating the threat by using hands-free cell phones. According to the guest, however, even the wires leading up to the ear phones emit some radiation. I rolled my eyes, facepawed, and laughed out loud.
Oh, for fuck's sake, if you can't tell the difference between "radiation" of the alpha, beta, gamma, x-ray, UV, light, IR, microwave, and radio and are afraid of all of them, then recycle your phone, sell your computer, donate your car, and move about a hundred miles west of Yellowknife. Don't spend your days in a TV news studio filled with bright lights, computers, TV cameras, recording and editing equipment, and microwave ovens.
Posted by: Kevin
|
June 1, 2011 11:36 AM
This was reported by my local radio station this morning, and even though it was a ... well ... local radio station, let's just say the reporter was ... well ... underwhelmed by any potential assignment of risk.
Maybe we're starting to make headway.
Posted by: nwrickert
|
June 1, 2011 11:36 AM
Excessive cell phone use addles the brain.
It should be obvious to all that the people at WHO have spent far too much time using their cell phones.
Perhaps I am too much of a cynic, but I am inclined to think of WHO as more political than scientific.
Posted by: Pliny
|
June 1, 2011 11:44 AM
There was a really good article about this in Harper's called For whom the cell tolls: Why your phone may (or may not) be killing you by Nathaniel Rich. You need a subscription to view the archives, which you should just pay the $16 for because Harper's is great.
My favorite part is the summary of past studies, here's a sample:
Posted by: jason.torchia
|
June 1, 2011 11:45 AM
"...the feeble data suggesting a possible link between cell phones was reworked and massaged..."
There is irrefutable evidence for a link between cell phones.
Posted by: Pliny
|
June 1, 2011 11:47 AM
Duh, I should have googled the article title, here's a free pdf (you should still subscribe to Harper's)
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 1, 2011 11:55 AM
Hey now...
'Kay. I guess I don't have to take that too personally. Tho' I'm almost surgically attached to it, now, as Tony J above reports, I don't really use my phone for actual talking that much. So mine generally isn't specifically glued to my head, anyway...
Sure, prolly in my hand, tho'. If I'm not driving.
Anyway, sign o' the jaded times, I saw these headlines yesterday, and didn't even bother to click.
Seriously. How many times is this going to come up as 'oh... maybe... if we turn the plots sideways and squint and bash ourselves in the head with this hammer a few times, we can see there might be some statistically valid correlation...'?
The very headlines gave it away. Oh, look, it's all 'maybe' again. Same shit, different month. What, slow news day, people?
(/That said, Orac's headline pretty much rocked.)
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
|
June 1, 2011 11:57 AM
@ Timberwoof # 33:
No, no, they don't want to move anywhere near Yellowknife. Don't forget cosmic radiation! You want to be as close to the (magnetic) equator as possible, and at sea level (or below).
The basic problem is, in the public's feeble mind, radiation is radiation. Alpha, beta, gamma, X-rays, neutrons, microwaves—all the same thing, and they'll all cause cancer and render everything they're exposed to "radioactive" as well.
Furthermore, there was no such thing as radiation before 1945. Every time I tell someone that at the peak of atmospheric testing in 1961, the average American's radiation exposure was about equally divided between fallout, cosmic ray secondaries, and radionuclides in the soil and earth (and of course, the fallout is almost completely nonexistent now), they stare at me slack-jawed, and it doesn't remotely sink in. I've basically given up doing it.
Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
|
June 1, 2011 11:59 AM
Of course, "everything they're exposed to" should read "everything exposed to them". I blame cell-phone rays.
Posted by: unbound
|
June 1, 2011 12:07 PM
Generally, when you see "X% increased risk" in these papers, you are looking at junk. Most studies that start going that path are p-value fishing expeditions from very broad data sets. Since there was no data released, it definitely becomes rather suspect.
I remember the last "scientific" study I looked at in detail with "% increased risk" claims was from a 10,000 person general study where 50% increased risk was claimed. But when you got down to the actual numbers, it turned out to be something like 45 with the issue and 30 without the issue. Out of a 10,000 person study who is supposed to represent the 300+ million people of the US. My old probs & stats teacher would be crying to read this nonsense...
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 1, 2011 12:48 PM
When are we going to start worrying about neighbor's and their dogs? My neighbor Sam's dog is really starting to bother me.
Posted by: Lambert
|
June 1, 2011 1:17 PM
The supposed damaged to DNA need not being caused only by ionization (typically caused by X-rays). Bond breaking will also damage organic matter. That's what cooking does.
Ionization is the removal of an electron from an atom and the energy required to do that ranges from around 300 kJ/mol to around 2,400 kJ/mol, depending on what atomic species is involved.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/ionize.html
Bond breaking in organic chemicals (carbon-carbon, coarbon -hydrogen etc. etc)requires much less energy than ionization. That's because the electron is not being removed from an atom. Instead the chemical bond between atoms is disrupted, but the resulting new molecular species is still electrically neutral: i.e not ionized.
Energies in the 50 to 120 jK/mol range are all that is needed to break those chemical bonds. See http://www.jhu.edu/chem/lectka/Bond%20Strengths.html
So the question is, can a cellphone at a range of a few centimeters, produce that kind of energy density?
Posted by: Neal
|
June 1, 2011 1:19 PM
@Hurin (#26):
I LOLed --- is there any kind of (weaker than gamma) radiation that *doesn't* lead to promotion of electrons from lower to higher energy levels upon absorption? ;)
**
Okay, here's a real contribution. In the meta-analysis, there are apparently 23 studies. 2 are significant (p = 0.05). If there is zero actual effect, then the probability of having 0, 1, or 2 false positive studies at p = 0.05 is ... wait for it ... 90%.
In other words, the literature is not just 'inconclusive,' it is perfectly (at this point) consistent with zero effect.
Posted by: stagemgrjon
|
June 1, 2011 1:22 PM
Why is the WHO getting involved in research that has proven nothing? The entire discussion seems to revolve around them making a point and then refuting that there is any evidence to support it.
I prefer my theory: All food in large quantity causes cancer except rat food.
After all, pretty much anything that we eat has been "shown to cause cancer in rats when they consume a large quantity." Every experiment using the scientific method has a control group. Therefore one would have to assume that the control group is fed rat food in the same large quantity. Therefore, since the control group can't have cancer if the experiment's conclusion is proven, rat food in large quantity does not cause cancer. QED.
Eat up!
Posted by: kidcharles
|
June 1, 2011 1:25 PM
It seems to me that people are talking less and less on phones and doing more text-based communication. Additionally, Bluetooth headsets are more common which should have substantially lower radiation output compared to the phone itself since it is designed as for short range, low power wireless communication. Even if cell phones increased brain cancer risk (I don't believe they do based on the many studies done), the risks will drop over time as holding the phone to your head for hours at a time becomes more rare. If there is a spike in thigh and waist cancer that correlates with which pocket people put their phones in, I might change my mind.
Posted by: crowepps
|
June 1, 2011 1:26 PM
I was lucky enough to hear the report of this study on NPR, which included the helpful fact that the IARC has NEVER designated ANYTHING as non-carcinogenic and has only found one item that is "probably not" carcinogenic. If you go to their site you will find they divide things into these classifications:
As a layperson, this does not fill me with confidence about the usefulness of their studies.
Posted by: Neal
|
June 1, 2011 1:32 PM
crowepps, that may be simply because negative results aren't interesting. Nobody wants to waste time studying things that "obviously" don't cause cancer, like water or air or whatever.
Myself, I discount anything from 2B down as not worth cutting out of my life --- as has been pointed out, 2B (where cell phones got dumped) includes things like COFFEEEEEEEEEE ... *goes to make another pot*
Posted by: PeteBell
|
June 1, 2011 1:38 PM
This may be anecdotal, but worth saying I think.
I am a test engineer who previously worked in the mobile/cellphone manufacturing and development industry for about 15 years. I worked for 3 employers over that period, all major manufacturers of cellphone technology.
Most days I was running tests on cellphone models about 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, maybe 48 weeks a year. Not only on hand held models bought by the public, but also the much more powerful base stations that the operators use to run the networks. The base station transmitter power output was shielded or ‘dumped’ to a low power output level so we could test them safely. However, the hand held devices were tested at the same transmitter power output levels that the public use.
I guess across the industry world-wide, there must be hundreds or thousands of engineers testing this equipment in close personal proximity, and continuously, every day. Many have been doing this for even more years than I did.
If there were any serious health risks to these mobile emissions, the telecoms industry is where you would expect to spot it first. So far as I know, there is no difference in rates of cancers or ill health amongst people working in the mobile telecoms industry than there is in the general population. (I never noticed my colleagues dropping like flies!).
Since I no longer work in the industry, I have no job to protect by saying otherwise.
Many studies on this topic have concluded that if there is any effect, it is so small as to be virtually undetectable. My assumption is that WHO are covering their backs just in case something turns up, so they can avoid any accusations of incompetence.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
June 1, 2011 1:42 PM
@Neal:
Alcohol is a class 1 carcinogen, and I'm sorry, but I like me a rum and coke every so often. (Gasp! Caffeine is class 2B as well... so that's a 2B and a 1! ZOMG)
Posted by: lhikanliveson
|
June 1, 2011 1:45 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AlzheimersNews/cell-phone-radiation-prevent-reverse-alzheimers-mice/story?id=9497387
Go use your phone more so you don't get Alzheimer's.
Posted by: ouigui
|
June 1, 2011 2:19 PM
Lambert @44:
Sweet baby Cthulhu, no! Energy density has very little to do with it. Multi-photon processes are very rare; if a bond breaks or an atom ionizes, it'll happen with a single photon.
The microwave range of the spectrum tops out at 300 GHz, which means that a microwave photon carries at most about 1 meV of energy. That's milli-electron-volt. Cell phones operate in a portion of the spectrum that's 100 times less energetic than that. By comparison, even the weakest hydrogen bond is still 50 meV.
And to correct an earlier commenter, UV most certainly can be ionizing radiation. The UV range extends from about 3 eV to about 100 eV of energy. Granted, the largest UV source around emits mostly on the low end of that range, where bond-breaking rather than ionization is the important effect.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
June 1, 2011 2:57 PM
Every time someone starts moaning about power lines, to pick another vaguely based worry, you can generally show them that the electrical forces from the AC current in their houses is 100 - 1000 times stronger, just using the inverse square ratio.
Posted by: Peter Ashby
|
June 1, 2011 2:58 PM
Here in the UK it is now illegal to drive and use a cellphone by any means other than a voice activated hands free kit. If you crash the police now routinely check your cellphone records and if there is responsive activity on your phone in the minute before your crash you are in big trouble. People have been done that way when the records showed they had sent a text a couple of seconds before crashing. BTW that is enough to void your car insurance too.
Posted by: Blondin
|
June 1, 2011 3:16 PM
And that's why I NEVER put kimchi or bourbon to the side of my head.
Posted by: Vicki, Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
|
June 1, 2011 3:16 PM
It's the usual thing of worrying about small new risks while ignoring larger ones because we're used to it. Bruce Schneier suggests that if it's in the newspaper, it's usually not a serious risk, because it's rare: common things aren't news.
I have a greater risk of cancer just from living here, because of the crap in the air. But I've been doing that, and breathing the air here, all my life; even people who grew up somewhere else are used to the local atmosphere.
Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort
|
June 1, 2011 3:21 PM
@Vicki:
So what you're saying is "air causes cancer!?"
*holds breath... passes out*
Posted by: Dude... Real Men Watch Ponies!
|
June 1, 2011 3:40 PM
@Vicki
#57
Right, where's my hazmat suit...
Posted by: Joffan
|
June 1, 2011 3:47 PM
@PeteBell #50
... while actually achieving the opposite. This report demonstrates incompetence, in publicizing and legitimizing concern about an effect that extensive research shows doesn't exist.Posted by: Hurin, Nattering Nabob of Negativism.
|
June 1, 2011 3:49 PM
Well, in all seriousness (just so that my point doesn't get lost), it depends on the splitting between the ground state and excited state energy levels. Most HOMO/LUMO splittings for pi bonding systems (like those found in the bases of DNA) correspond to photons in the UV or Visible spectra. The 2+2 cycloaddition requires an excitation of an olefin to a diradical species, a transition which occurs in the UV. An example of the 2+2 cycloaddition is is the dimerization of thyamine, and this is the reaction I was making a vague reference to. I'm fairly certain that no biological substance can be excited by photons in the microwave range.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmy6_djzH8FHHFpf5R0v3CDT9444FpKLic
|
June 1, 2011 4:12 PM
Myself I'm interested in reading more from this journal PZ says this appeared in. It seems to be new. It's good to see people are interested in cancers of an important group of organisms like lancelets. They don't get enough respect!
(But I've never seen a lancelet using a cellphone. You'd think they'd short out in all that seawater.)
Posted by: ouigui
|
June 1, 2011 4:20 PM
Hurin @61:
Heh, heh. You said "LUMO".
Posted by: Lambert
|
June 1, 2011 4:31 PM
@ouigui #53
Of course you are right. That was why Einstein got his Nobel - the photoelectric effect. One photon or nothing when it comes to promoting an electron to a higher energy shell.
Posted by: timgueguen
|
June 1, 2011 6:40 PM
If people want to worry about cell phone caused damage they should worry about the folks who text incessantly. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an increase in certain sorts of repetitive strain injuries and so on from people ramming their thumbs into hard plastic keyboards for hours a week.
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 1, 2011 6:46 PM
I've been using cellphones since I bought my first huge Motorola for business* in February 1990.
No brain cancer to report, as yet. ^_^
TIAs, yes. Can I sue Motorola for those? LOL
OR I think I'll just blame my crappy (inherited) cardiovascular system issues.
*The Retail Sales Guy wanted to sell me a two-way radio. (I had taken hubby with me, and had some problem at the beginning of the negotiations to convince RSG to talk to me rather than him.) Cell phones in those days were horrendously expensive to buy and run, and there were huge gaps in the network (this was in the UK). RSG's sales patter included the observation that 'most' independent taxi drivers used two-way radios. So I asked RSG how they got business from their house phones when they were out on the road. He replied that their wives took the calls, and relayed the information via the two-way radio. I fixed him with a steely glare and asked him, pointedly, if I LOOKED as if I had a wife at home. I 'won', and bought the phone. His obvious embarrassment was a bonus. ;-)
If nothing else, that shows the huge strides we have made in the last twenty-one years. No-one these days bats an eyelid at the idea that a woman can run her own business, or is capable of purchasing a cellphone, or might have a wife; they are also less likely to assume anyone has a stay-at-home partner.
Posted by: AJ Milne OM
|
June 1, 2011 6:57 PM
(Title card: an hour later...)
Coroner: ... So, I'd say it looks like it was asphyxiation.
WHO researcher: (taking notes on clipboard) So she didn't die of cancer, right?
Coroner: Well, no. I just told you. Asphyxiation. You know... No air, dead. You follow? This isn't complicated.
WHO researcher: (looking thoughtful) Huh. You don't say... So... Also... No air, no cancer, then, right?
Coroner: You're about to issue a press release, aren't you?
Posted by: Tigger_the_Wing
|
June 1, 2011 7:11 PM
AJ Milne OM @#67:
Applause!
Posted by: therealcountiblis
|
June 1, 2011 8:42 PM
It seems that this part of a bigger problem in the medical sciences. Consider the following issues:
Low level radiactivity and cancer. There is strong evidence that the old model based on Hiroshima is not correct, but we still use that model.
The discussions about GM food in Europe. Not a shred of evidence that there is a problem, but the discussions are going on for more than a decade and there is no end in sight.
Vitamin D: There is now strong evidence that Vitamin D in involved in processs other than calcium metabolism and that the RDA should be a lot higher than current recommendatons. However, the Institute of Medice (IOM) came out with a report that basically said that there is no evidence that vitamin D is involved in anything else than bone health. This has been criticised by many researchers. E.g. this article on lactating women compares the facts with the current official dogma.
Posted by: Stardrake
|
June 1, 2011 8:55 PM
And, of course, if you're using a Bluetooth® headset you've STILL got a microwave transmitter next to your head! Okay, it's only 2.5 mW at 2.4 gHz, but it's teh EBIL MYKROWAVZ RAYDEEASHUN!!!!
Damn, my 2 meter FM handie-talkie would turn these folk green...
Posted by: ouigui
|
June 1, 2011 9:36 PM
OT: Stardrake and JackC both mentioning ham stuff, and I'm taking the licensing exam next week. Hooray for RF nerds. :)
Posted by: Robbie
|
June 1, 2011 10:25 PM
Mobile phones, according to a piece on "Machines like us" have been heavily implicated in the demise of bees in industrialised countries. Brain cells and bees, along with huge bills. What good are they?
Posted by: therealcountiblis
|
June 1, 2011 10:47 PM
And terrorists now don't have to bother making dirty bombs anymore, they can just let a hidden device emit high frequency radiowaves and then announce on some website what they have done. Thousands of exposed people will then have to undergo regular brain scans for the rest of their lives.
Posted by: Forbidden Snowflake
|
June 1, 2011 11:56 PM
But did you know cell phones also emit luminous radiation?
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
June 2, 2011 12:14 AM
Robbie @72 - The thing about bees is based on a single study in Germany where researchers put a satellite phone, which is hundreds of times more powerful than a cell phone as well as a different frequency, inside a honeybee hive on constant transmission, and the bees purportedly became disoriented afterward. So even if those original results are valid, it's completely inapplicable to cell phones. People still like to spread it around though.
Posted by: Midnight Rambler
|
June 2, 2011 12:16 AM
Actually, my impression is that texting causes severe derangement. Of course the causality isn't firmly established, it could be the other way around.Posted by: F
|
June 2, 2011 12:48 AM
I can't believe you all. Chattering on about irrelevancies, ignoring the real issue, you poor deluded sheep.
Bullshit!
Posted by: Moose
|
June 2, 2011 1:42 AM
An Engineer’s perspective:
How about a direct comparison, comparable effect between different non-ionising radiation sources within the same relative wavelength?
"Light" is easily definable by wavelength, polarisation and magnitude. It's all around us-we are awash in it.
Cell phone transmissions are just another form of this light-a very narrow portion of the EM spectrum-and a weak one at that.
Does it cause heating of the brain?
Um, yes. Any EM source in close proximity to the cranium will cause this-based upon the ability of EM radiation to do what it does best-propagate.
That some of it's energy is absorbed by an unintentional target isn't the point-this is part of the whole electromagnetic theory biz that physicists have been harping on for the last century or so…
But...
Imagine the furore if it was disclosed that another source of EM radiation THOUSANDS OF TIMES MORE POWERFUL than a cell phone was present, unavoidable, and a known cause of cancer?
It's called "The Sun", and it’s radiological effects are well known.
Funny, the “Cell Phones Cause Cancer” crowd never seem to pick up on this rather obvious link-yet we have a multitude of idiots shouting “DANGER-RADIATION! RUN AWAY-HIDE-SCARE PEOPLE!!!”
I rest my case.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
June 2, 2011 1:50 AM
smartassjust because you happen to be correct...
Posted by: Moose
|
June 2, 2011 1:58 AM
I guess I missed this one earlier:
Yeah, I guess we're all blind as well...
Posted by: Moose
|
June 2, 2011 2:03 AM
I need to log out here-I just snorted cola onto my keyboard and it's shorting out!
Posted by: ginckgo
|
June 2, 2011 2:25 AM
For what it's worth: my father just died yesterday from a glioma that grew on his left brain - right where you tend to hold a mobile. Except he almost never used one; I don't think I ever saw him holding a mobile.
Posted by: chigau (◦_◦)
|
June 2, 2011 2:46 AM
ginckgo
*hugs*
Posted by: Moose
|
June 2, 2011 3:23 AM
ginckgo:
Thank you for providing the negative that is so needed in these arguments, however painful.
*HUGS*
Posted by: ginckgo
|
June 2, 2011 4:24 AM
OT, but my father's illness:
-brought home how urgent it is to do good and great things now, not tomorrow (he achieved a lot, including a new theory on innate immune systems)
-makes me avoid hospitals like the pest (talk about doctors with god delusions)
-made me distrust the whole cancer industry (and the alternatives)
-reaffirmed my atheism (no afterlife in his world view, and he calmly faced death to the end)
Posted by: dartigen
|
June 2, 2011 5:38 AM
IMO, the bigger risk from mobile phones is RSIs from over-use of texting. While the QWERTY keyboard phones and touchscreen phones with keyboards is a bit of a help, it really doesn't alleviate the problem.
Not only are RSIs generally expensive to treat, they can cause further problems than just pain and discomfort - loss of income, loss of livelihood, depression, permanent disability...did I mention huge medical bills?
I mean, okay, cancer is a problem, yes...but it's not a big deal. If there had been a sudden, massive jump in diagnoses after mobile phones became the norm, I'd be worried. But as has been pointed out, it's a tentative connection at best. Until there's definitive evidence, I'd say the RSIs are a bigger issue - especially given that there's a lot of young people using mobile phones whose future careers are going to suffer badly if they already have multiple RSIs when they're leaving high school.
Posted by: John Hynes
|
June 2, 2011 8:27 AM
Watch the 1981 episode of the BBC comedy series Yes Minister titled "The Greasy Pole", especially the last five minutes, and replace every mention of "metadioxin" with "cellphones", and "Henderson Report" with "WHO Report".
Posted by: Jottritter
|
June 2, 2011 9:56 AM
Here's a conspiracy theory for you: the members of WHO are working hand in hand with repressive governments who see cell phone usage as an aid to rebellion. This is the beginning of giving cell phones a bad enough "press" that they will eventually (with the populace's health in mind, of course)have a reason to totally ban them. I mean, look at what governments are represented in the UN's commission on Womens' rights!
Posted by: Dark Jaguar
|
June 2, 2011 11:56 AM
My understanding of it is it isn't a question of medicine, it's a question of physics. Microwaves physically can't do what they need to do to cause cancer.
Posted by: Dark Jaguar
|
June 2, 2011 11:59 AM
Oh yeah, I'm not worried about the weak electromagnetism from any of my computers either. It's all below ionizing, so I'm not concerned. Well, except CRT displays. Those put out x-rays in small doses. Those can be a concern if you watch them through a mirror while sitting directly behind one, but surely enough, those are all getting phased out in favor of other technologies, flatter technologies, which don't emit anything ionizing.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 2, 2011 4:03 PM
Dark Jaguar, go read Orac's post. You're simply wrong about what can cause cancer.
Posted by: Mattir-ritated
|
June 2, 2011 5:16 PM
Virtually all political issues can be understood through viewings of Yes Minister, Yes Prime Minister, and Battlestar Galactica.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion about whether your cellphone is plotting your death.
Posted by: ginckgo
|
June 2, 2011 8:30 PM
Wasn't there a recent study that indicated that cell phones may be the cause of the bee colony collapses?
Posted by: Aratina Cage
|
June 2, 2011 8:40 PM
ginckgo, see comment #75