Scientists warn US Congress of cancer risk for cell phone use

Sep 26, 2008

The potential link between mobile telephones and brain cancer could be similar to the link between lung cancer and smoking -- something tobacco companies took 50 years to recognize, US scientists warned Thursday.



Content from AFP expires 1 month after original publication date. For more information about AFP, please visit www.afp.com .

Explore further: Demographics impact family physicians' care of children

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Tilted acoustic tweezers separate cells gently

Aug 25, 2014

Precise, gentle and efficient cell separation from a device the size of a cell phone may be possible thanks to tilt-angle standing surface acoustic waves, according to a team of engineers.

Why NASA studies the ultraviolet sun

Aug 21, 2014

(Phys.org) —You cannot look at the sun without special filters, and the naked eye cannot perceive certain wavelengths of sunlight. Solar physicists must consequently rely on spacecraft that can observe ...

Taking great ideas from the lab to the fab

Jul 31, 2014

A "valley of death" is well-known to entrepreneurs—the lull between government funding for research and industry support for prototypes and products. To confront this problem, in 2013 the National Science ...

The science that stumped Einstein

Jul 01, 2014

In 1908, the physics world woke up to a puzzle whose layers have continued to stump the greatest scientists of the century ever since. That year, Dutch physicist Kamerlingh Onnes cooled mercury down to -450° ...

Recommended for you

Demographics impact family physicians' care of children

Sep 12, 2014

(HealthDay)—Demographic and geographic factors influence whether family physicians provide care for children, according to a study published in the September/October issue of the Annals of Family Medicine.

Estimate: 3 in 10 NFL retirees face cognitive woes (Update)

Sep 12, 2014

Nearly three in 10 former NFL players will develop at least moderate neurocognitive problems and qualify for payments under the proposed $765 million concussion settlement, according to data prepared for ex-players' lawyers ...

Physician describes impact of malpractice suit

Sep 12, 2014

(HealthDay)—A family doctor who was involved in a malpractice suit describes the impact on her practice of medicine in an article published online in the September/October issue of the Annals of Family Me ...

Report outlines 'must-have' sexual health services for men

Sep 12, 2014

(Medical Xpress)—Compared with women, American men have worse access to reproductive and sexual health care, research shows, a disparity fueled in part by the lack of standard clinical guidelines on the types and timing ...

New report finds a healthy well-being among Chinese children

Sep 12, 2014

A new study of children's well-being in Shanghai finds that first-graders are socially and emotionally healthy, with most performing average or above average academically. The study, by the New York University-East China ...

User comments : 74

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

superhuman
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2008
In addition, a paper published this month by the Royal Society in London found that adolescents who start using cell phones before the age of 20 were five times more likely to develop brain cancer at the age of 29 than those who didn't use a cell phone.
"It's only on the side of the head where you use the cell phone," Carpenter said.


This starts to looks serious.
mysticfree
3.5 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2008
Given how there is much more texting than talking among the youthful users of cell phones, I guess there should be warnings for thumb cancer forthcoming!
Modernmystic
3.6 / 5 (18) Sep 26, 2008
Please sir can I have some more grant money...

It's NON IONIZING radiation, my God might as well throw away everything that has an EM field around it and go back to throwing spears.
QubitTamer
3.5 / 5 (15) Sep 26, 2008
I cannot believe this rubbish still has legs!!! How many watts of EMR are we all bathed in ever second of EVERY day! Radio, TV, WiFi, Mobile police, etc are all emitting far more wattage that the measley .1 to .3 watts of mobile phone transmission! Don't give me that frequency BS either, the most EM energy can do to human tissue is HEAT IT UP. Scientists and medical researchers and the military have looked and experimented for decades to see if there is DNA or RNA or nuceleotide damage to internal cells and have NEVER found anything that affects the molecular structures until the radiant energy heats the tissue up to the point where it is being destroyed... Who ever heard of a cell phone microwave cooking someones head?

This is ALL a freaking red herring by lawyers and government officials looking for a way to loot the profits of the mobile / telecommunications industries!
Szkeptik
4.1 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2008
Even if it was true noone can expect us to simply stop using mobile phones. It's not like cigarettes where you smoke because you are addicted to it. Million of people need their phone to be with them wherever they go because of their work. If they do cause cancer than the goal should not be putting warning stickers on them but making different kinds of mobile phones that are not dangerous.
D666
4.1 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2008
This is ALL a freaking red herring by lawyers and government officials looking for a way to loot the profits of the mobile / telecommunications industries!


It is entirely possible that you are right. It is also entirely possible that you are wrong. Unfortunately, we've got "conclusive" studies on both sides. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not competent to evaluate the specifics of medical studies beyond the statistical parts. The study claiming an increase in brain tumors on the cell-phone-side of adolescents *at minimum* begs for a closer look, and I would think the people on "your" side of the argument should at least attempt to explain the findings.

Myself, I hate the damthings anyway.
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (16) Sep 26, 2008
I think the point some here are trying to make is that the whole premise of the study is flawed. Non ionizing radiation CAN NOT change DNA, it has ZERO mutagenic effects on human cells...period.

It may be that someone has found some correlation between cell phone users and cancer but it simply CAN'T be due to the radiation involved. It's like doing a study that finds that people who drive cars have more whiplash than other people and saying it's because of the EM radiation given off by their speakers, not the fact that occasionally you get hit from behind by someone in an accident....
googleplex
2.8 / 5 (15) Sep 26, 2008
Please sir can I have some more grant money...

It's NON IONIZING radiation, my God might as well throw away everything that has an EM field around it and go back to throwing spears.


Some of the above comments are blatently wrong. To say that EM radiation is healthy proves how little scientific knowledge people know.

Gamma rays are also EM radiation just like cell phone signals. They are identical to cell phone radiation except for frequency.

Microwave cookers (another EM radiation) were invented after radio antenna maintenance workers getting cooked kidneys and organs whilst working on live transmitters.

UV EM radiation is used by genetics researchers to induce mutations in organisms.

Smoking was/is also tied to work. It was and still is in some places part of the office environment whether you liked it or not.

When challenging peer reviewed scientific research papers made by leading scientists in their field it helps to get the basic facts straight. Otherwise you lose all credibility. It is far better to take a questioning stance than make patently false statements.

The issue is complicated by the fact that people differ in their genes. There is widely acknowledged evidence that some people have genes that protect from cancer and others have genes that make them vulnerable to specific cancer. Saying cell phones give people cancer is an over simplification.
The side of the argument that I take is the side of the truth. The truth is often comlicated.
googleplex
2.6 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2008
I cannot believe this rubbish still has legs!!! How many watts of EMR are we all bathed in ever second of EVERY day! Radio, TV, WiFi, Mobile police, etc are all emitting far more wattage that the measley .1 to .3 watts of mobile phone transmission! Don't give me that frequency BS either, the most EM energy can do to human tissue is HEAT IT UP. Scientists and medical researchers and the military have looked and experimented for decades to see if there is DNA or RNA or nuceleotide damage to internal cells and have NEVER found anything that affects the molecular structures until the radiant energy heats the tissue up to the point where it is being destroyed... Who ever heard of a cell phone microwave cooking someones head?

This is ALL a freaking red herring by lawyers and government officials looking for a way to loot the profits of the mobile / telecommunications industries!


Look up the inverse square law.
The EM transmitters you mention are not placed directly against human flesh. So you need to reduce the wattage by dividing it by the square of the distance between the transmitter and human reciever. In addition the intensity should be further reduced by any shielding (including air).
You will be suprised at how sharply the intensity of radiation level drops over distance. Or to put it in the converse. How markedly the radiation exposure increases as you approach the source.

To say that EM radiation can only heat things up is wrong. Look up the effects of excessive xrays or gamma rays.

DNA and RNA damage might not be the pathway. What about the framework of the nucleus. All those nano scale tubules and pathways that we have not even mapped yet. The DNA is less than half of the picture.
Modernmystic
3.4 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2008
WOW way to stretch the point google. Obviously I didn't mean to stand in front of an x-ray machine for ten years. I think it's pretty obvious I was talking about things which are already blatantly obvious to regulatory agencies.

It's why you wear a lead apron in an x-ray room and you don't when you watch TV.
googleplex
3.8 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2008
Actually you do when you watch TV. The glass screen in a CRT is 70% lead to shield you from the Beta radiation gun at the back of the screen pointing at your head. This is all very basic physics.
Modernmystic
3.1 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2008
To say that EM radiation can only heat things up is wrong. Look up the effects of excessive xrays or gamma rays.


I might, if cell phones actually produced x-rays and gamma rays.

DNA and RNA damage might not be the pathway. What about the framework of the nucleus. All those nano scale tubules and pathways that we have not even mapped yet. The DNA is less than half of the picture.


Heating is the only effect non ionizing radiation has...might as well ban hot packs while your at it.

Modernmystic
3.1 / 5 (9) Sep 26, 2008
Actually you do when you watch TV. The glass screen in a CRT is 70% lead to shield you from the Beta radiation gun at the back of the screen pointing at your head. This is all very basic physics.


Thanks for proving my point about things already taken into consideration...
googleplex
3.2 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2008
Note that these things are only taken into consideration after evidence has been presented by scientists. The same scientists who are saying that cell phone health might be an issue.

The point here is that do you want to wait for the government to catch up with legislation or someone to prove that cell radiation is neutral or good for you. Prudence dictates a cautious approach until science can figure it out. So minimize on cell phone use. Try to use it hands free or with a headset and don't let kids use them.
Modernmystic
3 / 5 (13) Sep 26, 2008
The problem here is that the evidence has already been presented. We've been studying the effects of EM radiation on human beings for fifty years or better. The universal conclusion is that non ionizing radiation (like that given off by cell phones) can't cause cancer. Similar studies have been done on power lines with the same results...

The writing is already on the wall. IMO this is just another way to cash in on grant money by saying the sky is falling when clearly it can't.
superhuman
3.6 / 5 (12) Sep 26, 2008
Heating can lead to mutations not by itself but by decreasing efficiency of DNA repair mechanisms.

DNA is getting damaged ALL THE TIME, mostly by reactive oxygen species, a byproduct of mitochondria metabolism, but also by various toxic compounds and by naturally occuring ionizing radiation.

The damage is constantly repaired by specialized cellular complexes. All proteins including those which build those repair complexes are destabilized by heat. The idea that prolonged heating of brain tissue, even if only by a few degrees C, can lead to increased error rate in DNA repair and in turn to higher mutation rate is PERFECTLY VALID from scientific point of view.

It is also possible that rotation of molecular dipoles which try to align themselves with rapidly changing EM fields disrupts some weak molecular interactions which can then lead to increase error rate.

Not to mention that we are still VERY FAR from completely understanding how cells work and there might be some unknown processes sensitive to cell phone radiation which are still waiting to be discovered!

Don't spread disinformation. The fact that you don't know of any mechanism by which something can happen doesn't mean there isn't one.

This is a very serious issue as the health of billions of people is at stake!

Finally if brain tumor is indeed more likely to occur on the side of head where people keep their cell phones its really hard to argue its a coincidence!

Even if it was true noone can expect us to simply stop using mobile phones.


No need to stop using cell phones, just use hands free sets, and keep the phone itself away from the head, that will eliminate the heating of brain tissue and most likely eliminate the danger.
Tekito
3.5 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2008
"The universal conclusion is that non ionizing radiation (like that given off by cell phones) can't cause cancer."

That quote is NOT true. UVA radiation (which is non-ionizing) can help cause cancer nondirectly. The human body is amazingly complex and there are several pathways to damage other than directly ionizing molecules. I made a post like this a while back so sorry if it sounds repetitive.

I think people need to appreciate the incredible complexity involved in these situations, and realize unless you happen to be an expert (and sometimes not even then), you should never be dismissive of harmful possibilites. There have been some positive studies, yes, but nothing to the degree that a scientist would consider concluding cellphones are 0 safe.
Modernmystic
2.8 / 5 (11) Sep 26, 2008
Heating can lead to mutations not by itself but by decreasing efficiency of DNA repair mechanisms.


Source?

DNA is getting damaged ALL THE TIME, mostly by reactive oxygen species, a byproduct of mitochondria metabolism, but also by various toxic compounds and by naturally occuring ionizing radiation.


Irrelevant to the topic.

The damage is constantly repaired by specialized cellular complexes. All proteins including those which build those repair complexes are destabilized by heat. The idea that prolonged heating of brain tissue, even if only by a few degrees C, can lead to increased error rate in DNA repair and in turn to higher mutation rate is PERFECTLY VALID from scientific point of view.


Then like I said you should probably ban hot packs, or long strolls on the beach too...

It's not valid to say that heat causes cancer, there is no evidence it does. Talk about disinformation.

It is also possible that rotation of molecular dipoles which try to align themselves with rapidly changing EM fields disrupts some weak molecular interactions which can then lead to increase error rate.


The burden of proof is on you. It's also possible that cell phones attract invisible flying spaghetti monsters that mess with DNA but there is no more evidence for this than what you're talking about.

Not to mention that we are still VERY FAR from completely understanding how cells work and there might be some unknown processes sensitive to cell phone radiation which are still waiting to be discovered!


Again this is proof of nothing. How is fear mongering better than "spreading disinformation"?

Don't spread disinformation. The fact that you don't know of any mechanism by which something can happen doesn't mean there isn't one.


It's not that I don't know of a mechanism it's that NO ONE knows one. And the fact that you can't produce one is certianly not a good reason to start worring about cell phones...quite the opposite in fact.

This is a very serious issue as the health of billions of people is at stake!


It might be if there were an issue or evidence that non ionizing radiation can cause cancer, but since there isn't...

Finally if brain tumor is indeed more likely to occur on the side of head where people keep their cell phones its really hard to argue its a coincidence!


Actually it's ridiculous to say there's a correlation since people probably use that ear in concert with many other devices too. It's like saying using a pencil causes tennis elbow because people write with the same hand that tennis elbow develops on. Never mind it's their dominant hand and they also use it to hold a racquet when they play tennis too...
fuchikoma
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
True, Tekito, and shorter UV wavelengths are even ionizing.

"HSV Technologies" makes a stungun that ionizes channels of air with 193nm far-UV lasers, then sends an electrical shock along the conduit it creates.

As I see the cel phone radiation issue, an operating phone is adding energy to materials around it, and in some cases, that can provide enough to bring about a chemical reaction if it is already likely to happen on its own, even if it is just heat we're talking about. Whether that poses a health risk is another issue, but there have definitely been some very heavy users for a while now, and cel phones only keep getting weaker output as we're able to send intelligible signals at low power levels and more cells become available.

But sadly, everyone already knows the answer whether they're harmful or not, and none of them agree on it!
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2008
That quote is NOT true. UVA radiation (which is non-ionizing) can help cause cancer nondirectly. The human body is amazingly complex and there are several pathways to damage other than directly ionizing molecules. I made a post like this a while back so sorry if it sounds repetitive.


Do cell phones produce UVA radiation? If not this statement is not relevant to the discussion...
ZeroDelta
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2008
Theories are just that, data is something else.
Inverse square law data = problem.
D666
3.6 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008

Actually it's ridiculous to say there's a correlation since people probably use that ear in concert with many other devices too. It's like saying using a pencil causes tennis elbow because people write with the same hand that tennis elbow develops on. Never mind it's their dominant hand and they also use it to hold a racquet when they play tennis too...


[ahem] The report (admittedly second-hand) did state that this correlation was noted in adolescents that made significant use of cell-phones. The implication is that this corrrelation did not exist in adolescents that used pencils (little joke. Very small). While it's not *conclusive*, I think it's enough for a worried "hmmmmmm.". Maybe it's just the medium of discussion, but I find your apparent rigid denial that we should even consider the possibility of a problem to be a little worrying.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (8) Sep 26, 2008
My denial that the Earth is flat would be just as rigid and for the same reasons...

Show me a mechanism and I'll admit I'm wrong. Until then there simply is no scientific basis to state cell phones cause cancer.
googleplex
2.8 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
Show me a mechanism and I'll admit I'm wrong. Until then there simply is no scientific basis to state cell phones cause cancer.


There are plenty of well documented mechanisms that EM radiation causes cancer. e.g.

Ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer: molecular mechanisms
http://www.ingent...ler=true
Tekito
3.5 / 5 (10) Sep 26, 2008
"Do cell phones produce UVA radiation? If not this statement is not relevant to the discussion..."

The statement IS relevant to the discussion. Someone above appeared to make the assertion that if radiation is non-ionizing, then it does not cause cancer. So ANY example of non-ionizing radiation that causes cancer would show that assumption to be flawed.
Bazz
3.5 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
Another highly controversial topic,but this one i am less sure of.I do seem to agree so far with you modernmystic.

As far as i know the most trustworthy studies havent been able to make a connection between cellphones and cancer.There will always be people with different opinions but until there is convincing evidence its not proven.

Time will tell if they are right or wrong.

googleplex
3.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
One would think that it would be relatively easy to conduct an experiment to establish a statistically significant correlation. For example irradiate mice 24 x 7 and observe the effects. Shielding must be used to protect the mice and the control group from all external EM radiation.
Not a perfect test as mice are not identical to humans. However if there were a correlation then work could be done to indentify the specific mechanism and see if that applied to humans.
The caveat is that correlation never implies causality which is what a few "pencil" comments above were trying to say.
Of course it might be that there is more than one causal factor. Like concurrently using a cell phone and being in a strong electro-magnetic field. There are so many variables it is hard to know where to start other than look at the actual sample based data. This is what these scientist have done and have presumably found statistically significant results.
Perhaps all these kids have a clock radio on the same side as the phone. The clock radio emits a large EMF.
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2008
"Do cell phones produce UVA radiation? If not this statement is not relevant to the discussion..."

The statement IS relevant to the discussion. Someone above appeared to make the assertion that if radiation is non-ionizing, then it does not cause cancer. So ANY example of non-ionizing radiation that causes cancer would show that assumption to be flawed.


No it isn't relevant because cell phones (what this discussion is about) don't produce UVA radiation. In fact the initial statement wasn't that UVA radiation produces cancer it was that it INDIRECTLY is POSSIBLE that it can cause cancer.

I simply thought it easier to assume the argument and concede the point (that UVA radiation can indirectly cause cancer) rather than get off topic.

It's much easier to merely point out that the non ionizing radiation which was implicated in possibly being able to indirectly cause cancer IS NOT THE SAME RADIATION PRODUCED BY CELL PHONES and therefore NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION....

Get it?

Unless of course you're ACTUALLY saying it doesn't matter what kind of radiation you're exposed to, and in that case I dare you to stand next to an unshielded nuclear core for an hour...
Modernmystic
2.7 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2008
Incidentally microwave radiation is of a MUCH lower frequency than another non ionizing kind of radiation...visible light. You're more likely to get cancer from a light bulb than a cell phone.
Nick_Name
2.8 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
Ah, but is it the actual electromagnetic field, or the volatile solvents in the plastic case that are to blame? Perhaps we need a controlled experiment where people walk around with a block of plastic held to an ear for several years. The EM field is benign from all I have ever read and seen. Let the chemical industry take this one on.
Tekito
2.8 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
"The universal conclusion is that non ionizing radiation (like that given off by cell phones) can't cause cancer."


"It's much easier to merely point out that the non ionizing radiation which was implicated in possibly being able to indirectly cause cancer IS NOT THE SAME RADIATION PRODUCED BY CELL PHONES and therefore NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION.... "


What made it relevant to the conversation is when the first statement was made, implying that ALL non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. If you are averse to tangential exceptions being raised, then avoid making over-generalized and untrue statements that, if not contended, would easily win the debate.

Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
Now there's something I'm not prepared to dismiss out of hand Nick. I have no knowledge or good answer for that.

As for the EM fields however...it's complete nonsense.
Modernmystic
2.5 / 5 (4) Sep 26, 2008
What made it relevant to the conversation is when the first statement was made, implying that ALL non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. If you are averse to tangential exceptions being raised, then avoid making over-generalized and untrue statements that, if not contended, would easily win the debate.


If you actually read what I wrote I was NOT being averse to exceptions being made, in fact I was willing to concede the point, because the "point" being made had no impact whatsoever on the premise of the argument.
Tekito
2.5 / 5 (2) Sep 26, 2008
I think we have beaten the point to death then.

That being established, I suppose what remains is to evaluate, as you said, whether there is a plausible mechanism of action (or series of studies) for cell phone radiation to (indirectly) increase the risk of cancer. Else there might not be reason for alarm. Maybe at some point I will actually go to wikipedia and a few other sites to see what evidence or expert advise is out there.
Soylent
5 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
UV-A has enough energy to excite most molecules(directly exciting DNA molecules is how it can cause cancer) and enough energy to ionize a few of them.

Visible light has enough energy to excite a few molecules(e.g. the rods and cones in your eye; fluorescent paint).

By the time you get down to mobile phone radiation the amount of energy in a single quanta is 100 000 to a million times less than visible light; all it can do is wiggle molecules about a little, heating the tissue.

It's also interesting to note that most studies of low-dose response to ionizing radiation have found an inverse correlation with cancer. A proposed mechanism is that the stimulation of the body's repair mechanism is more important the damage it causes at low doses and that helps in repairing the thousands of DNA damages that occur to every single cell in your body every day from metabolism.
ChiRaven
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 26, 2008
I would think that if there were a significant danger from long term exposure to RF energy in the head that it would have been detected long ago in studies involving amateur radio operators. These people have been using using equipment with far higher RF output (several watts instead of milliwatts) on a regular basis on far longer time scales (a lot of their hand held equipment dates to the 1950's at least), and it is typically used in immediate proximity to the head just as cell phones are, but I have yet to see any studies linking use of these radios to any form of health risk.
GrayMouser
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2008
What I find interesting is "The committee were shown several European studies". Why European studies? There are a number of American studies on the issue. Of course they don't show a statistically significant connection so you'd be hard pressed to panic Congress in to passing more ill conceived laws...

If there's a problem, outlaw cell phones and put it to rest. We can start by outlawing them in the workplace, followed by public facilities, and then any place within a reasonable distance of a school (say 50 miles.)
goldengod
1.6 / 5 (7) Sep 26, 2008
From my experience after using my phone for long talks or over a course of a day I have a definite ache on the side of my head just above the ear and closer to the temple. This is completely removed from the position of the phone when I use it. If I stop using the phone for a few days the ache gradually subsides. I also notice the heat that is generated by using the phone for a long period. It is much more like a microwave heat than a normal conductive heat. I am also concerned that walking around with my phone in my pocket every day is going to have a long term impact on my lower body area. If the evidence continues to mount I predict we will see a gradual increase in the numbers of cancers found in the lower portion of the body. Especially the most notorious types that just need a little extra radiation to make them more prevalent. Maybe we all need lead shielded carry cases. There's potential to make a lot of money from such a simple accessory...
YouAreRight
3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2008
Thanks Modernmystic for taking the time to explain the truth about what we understand about cell phones.

It's scary how many trusted knowledgeable people begin spreading fear about the unknown(by this I mean what we can't see or touch directly); like our
friend Mr(no Dr in his title) "David Carpenter, director of the Institute of Health and Environment at the University of Albany"

It's interesting to note that we are dealing physics(and for our buzzwords, biology), but no one who understands these fields of science,
like a physicist or biophysicist, is presenting the "evidence".

The website of the Institute of Health and Environment at the University of Albany
http://www.albany.edu/ihe/

I took an excerpt from their mission statement, to give you an idea of the ideas behind this institute.
This non-profit organisation funds research in "...hazardous waste management, occupational health, risk assessment, risk management, risk communication and social and psychological aspects of environmental pollution regarding human behaviour..."
Someone who works for this type of institution is passionate about saving and protecting people.
How can they possibly provide unbiased research, based on the scientific method.

This discussion is not about physics or science, it's about people and their fear of what they can't see or touch.

Here is someone local to me, who scared 700 local people into signing a petition to stop a power substation from being built.
http://www.voltageshock.co.nz/

Unlike Mr Carpenter, Dr Doering is a doctor, and spread disinformation about power cables and cancer to a huge audience.
Who isn't going to trust and support a local family Doctor who has children.

We can't stop these people from expressing themselves nor do we want to eliminate freedom of speech.

We need a scientific organisation that steps in when these protests arise to inform the public and most importantly the people spreading the fear because they are the most scared.
NeptuneAD
3.3 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2008
Very interesting article, obviously there are a lot of differing opinions on the matter, however my stance is that there isn't enough solid facts to have an opinion either way and as the article states about tobacco & lead, it may be best to err on the side of caution, unfortunately with cellphones being so vital these days, most people will probably continue to take the stance of Modernmystic and if it turns out that it is proven beyond doubt that cellphones cause cancer then those people will no doubt still use them, but of course that's where evolution comes into play lol.
packrat
2.5 / 5 (6) Sep 26, 2008
All I know is I used to cook hot dogs on my car's cb antenna..... I will not use a cell phone!
GrayMouser
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 26, 2008
All I know is I used to cook hot dogs on my car's cb antenna..... I will not use a cell phone!


What did you do? Hook up a linear amplifier to it? CBs are only 5 watts.
superhuman
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 27, 2008
Modernmystic, you are the worst example of scientific illiteracy. Not only your knowledge is very limited but you adamantly oppose anything that is in opposition to your beliefs. We are not arguing that there is a link with cancer we are arguing that THERE MIGHT BE A LINK AND IT NEEDS TO BE TESTED FURTHER. This is the only way to scientific progress - further testing.
If we ever decide we know enough and further testing is not required it will be the end of science.

You would just as desperately defend the flat Earth assumption if that was the one you prefered and you violently oppose to any experiments which might decide its not flat.

The FIRST and most important rule of science:
EXPERIMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING

The second most important rule:
If there is any doubt whatsoever it needs to be DECIDED BY EXPERIMENT

If human health is in danger it is even more important not to allow your prejudice get in the way of scientific inquiry.

And if its half the bloody human population that might be in danger arguing against further testing based on your ignorant beliefs is extremely irresponsible!

Heating can lead to mutations not by itself but by decreasing efficiency of DNA repair mechanisms.

Source?

Any molecular biology book.
I don't have time to educate you, but here is a first example of relevant article i could find:
http://www.ncbi.n...alpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
And quote from abstract:
Heat shock is one of the most effective radiosensitizers known. As a result, combination of heat with ionizing radiation (IR) is considered a promising strategy in the management of human cancer. The mechanism of heat radiosensitization has been the subject of extensive work but a unifying mechanistic model is presently lacking. To understand the cause of excessive death in irradiated cells after heat exposure, it is necessary to characterize the lesion(s) underlying the effect and to determine which of the pathways processing this lesion are affected by heat. Since DNA double strand breaks (DSBs) are the main cause for IR-induced cell death, inhibition of DSB processing has long been considered a major candidate for heat radiosensitization.

You are free to go to pubmed (http://www.ncbi.n.../entrez) and look for yourself, type in "heat shock DNA repair" query and you have 450 articles to start with, then try other terms.
Heat shock has a profound effect on all cells, and its no wonder as proteins and biochemical reactions are very heat sensitive, thats why rising the temp by 10 degrees will kill humans. Thats why rising temp by 2 degrees might increase cancer chance.

Remember we are not arguing what happens but what MIGHT happen, so your position is really impossible to defend.

DNA is getting damaged ALL THE TIME, mostly by reactive oxygen species, a byproduct of mitochondria metabolism, but also by various toxic compounds and by naturally occuring ionizing radiation.

Irrelevant to the topic.

Let me guess, anything that proves you wrong is irrelevant?
This is the simple and obvious way in which heat can lead to DNA damage, mutations happen all the time and so heat only needs to destabilize repair to lead to mutations.

The damage is constantly repaired by specialized cellular complexes. All proteins including those which build those repair complexes are destabilized by heat. The idea that prolonged heating of brain tissue, even if only by a few degrees C, can lead to increased error rate in DNA repair and in turn to higher mutation rate is PERFECTLY VALID from scientific point of view.

Then like I said you should probably ban hot packs, or long strolls on the beach too...

Haha, amazing that with your lack of knowledge about human biology you feel entitled to argue here. At least you might learn something: Ever heard the term "warm-blooded"? Well humans are warm-blooded animal species - we maintain thermal homeostasis.
Unfortunately it only works on the body as a whole so if you heat up part of your brain it wont help much.

It's not valid to say that heat causes cancer, there is no evidence it does. Talk about disinformation.

Nothing like a straw man argument. I am saying that the *HYPOTHESIS* that "heat from intense cell phone usage might slightly rise cancer probability due to heating of brain tissue" is perfectly valid from scientific point of view.
Do you understand the difference between hypothesis and fact?

It is also possible that rotation of molecular dipoles which try to align themselves with rapidly changing EM fields disrupts some weak molecular interactions which can then lead to increase error rate.

The burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on experiments of course. This is only a *hypothesis*. Its actually well known science (although not to you obviously) that all dipoles align themselves with EM field lines, it is also well known fact that most biological molecules are dipoles. It is obvious that any disruption is subtle at best, but it is a perfectly valid hypothesis that they exist.

It's also possible that cell phones attract invisible flying spaghetti monsters that mess with DNA but there is no more evidence for this than what you're talking about.

This is your hypothesis, if you wont to test it I wont stop you.

Not to mention that we are still VERY FAR from completely understanding how cells work and there might be some unknown processes sensitive to cell phone radiation which are still waiting to be discovered!

Again this is proof of nothing. How is fear mongering better than "spreading disinformation"?

Lol, this is a *fact*.
A *fact* which proves that anyone who argues there can be no possible mechanism by which cell phone radiation leads to increase in cancer prevalence is an ignorant fool as he argues without even knowing how the system works.
All that can be argued today is that it is improbable and that the effect if it exist is small, but it is completely unacceptable to claim that it does not exist! Further research is needed!

Don't spread disinformation. The fact that you don't know of any mechanism by which something can happen doesn't mean there isn't one.

It's not that I don't know of a mechanism it's that NO ONE knows one. And the fact that you can't produce one is certianly not a good reason to start worring about cell phones...quite the opposite in fact.

I gave you 2 *possible* mechanisms which could explain it. And the reason to start worrying is not them but the RESEARCH done so far, if some research shows the rise in cancer probability we are obliged to treat it seriously! If there was no effect how come the results show that there is? Let me guess it was bad science right? And the one you base your claims on is the right science? Well we have to treat all science the same, if there is bad science other scientists will point out its shortfalls, but if there are credible results that shows there is an effect it has to be treated very seriously due to extreme impact it might have.

Besides if one study shows the effect and the other doesn't we have to consider the effect exist and continue research until we know why we get different results. We don't just assume that it one nullifies the other or something.

This is a very serious issue as the health of billions of people is at stake!

It might be if there were an issue or evidence that non ionizing radiation can cause cancer, but since there isn't...

And tell me how do YOU know there isn't any?

There is research published by scientists in peer reviewed journals. This is the BEST possible evidence humanity can produce! What would convince you a revelation from god?

Finally if brain tumor is indeed more likely to occur on the side of head where people keep their cell phones its really hard to argue its a coincidence!

Actually it's ridiculous to say there's a correlation since people probably use that ear in concert with many other devices too. It's like saying using a pencil causes tennis elbow because people write with the same hand that tennis elbow develops on. Never mind it's their dominant hand and they also use it to hold a racquet when they play tennis too...

ITS COMPARED TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T USE MOBILE PHONES, so any other device is necessarily included in the sample unless you can name a device which is only used by people who use mobile phones and is not a mobile phone?
Name just one such device.

Do you even realize that this issue could lead to brain cancer and horrible death of millions of people? Do you realize that if that is the case you will share part of the blame?
Is it really so hard to understand that situation like this has to be treated very seriously?

There might be a serious threat to health of billions of people, it can be easily prevented by using hands free sets and keeping the phone away from the head. People need to know this to make an informed decision and your loud and ignorant arguments prevent the message from getting through.
QLogical
5 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2008
............unless you can name a device which is only used by people who use mobile phones and is not a mobile phone?
Name just one such device.

Hmmm, bluetooth headset at a lovely 2.4GHz, just like a microwave. Yes, I know, much less power, and not everyone with a mobile phone has one, but the device fitted your criteria, so I jumped in to "Name just one such device."

Of course, I don't use either device myself.
superhuman
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 27, 2008
Hmmm, bluetooth headset at a lovely 2.4GHz, just like a microwave.


Yeah, thats probably closest you can get to such a thing.

As you say it generates a much weaker version of a cell phone EM field so its rather hard to argue it could lead to a cancer without at the same time implicating cell phones.
Its also relatively rare compared to cell phones.
Modernmystic
2.1 / 5 (7) Sep 27, 2008
Modernmystic, you are the worst example of scientific illiteracy. Not only your knowledge is very limited but you adamantly oppose anything that is in opposition to your beliefs. We are not arguing that there is a link with cancer we are arguing that THERE MIGHT BE A LINK AND IT NEEDS TO BE TESTED FURTHER. This is the only way to scientific progress - further testing.
If we ever decide we know enough and further testing is not required it will be the end of science.


The testing has been done for fifty years or more and there has been ZERO evidence of cancer caused by the frequencies we're talking about...period. There is simply no documented mechanism and until there is you're pissing in the wind because you haven't a scientific leg to stand on.

The FIRST and most important rule of science:
EXPERIMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING

The second most important rule:
If there is any doubt whatsoever it needs to be DECIDED BY EXPERIMENT;


Not according to you, according to you everything should be decided AGAINST experiment in favor of supposition garnered form people needing grant money they gain at the expense of fear mongering.

If human health is in danger it is even more important not to allow your prejudice get in the way of scientific inquiry.


If it were this statement might be valid.

And if its half the bloody human population that might be in danger arguing against further testing based on your ignorant beliefs is extremely irresponsible!


Are you acquainted with the idea of free speech and the free exchange of ideas? Or do you curl up with Mein Kamph every night with your warm milk?


Heat shock is one of the most effective radiosensitizers known. As a result, combination of heat with ionizing radiation (IR) is considered a promising strategy in the management of human cancer. The mechanism of heat radiosensitization has been the subject of extensive work but a unifying mechanistic model is presently lacking.


IOW there is no proof of such...just idiotic supposition like the kind you've been inflicting on this thread ad nauseam.

Remember we are not arguing what happens but what MIGHT happen, so your position is really impossible to defend.


No actually it's quite the opposite since by definition you CAN'T support any position that says cell phones cause cancer. I on the other hand have fifty years of human beings being around much higher frequency non ionizing radiation than microwaves with no evidence it causes cancer.

Let me guess, anything that proves you wrong is irrelevant?


No anything that claims DNA damage other than microwave radiation is tho.

Haha, amazing that with your lack of knowledge about human biology you feel entitled to argue here.


Last time I checked there was no government gestapo one needed to apply to in order to espouse an opinion. Perhaps your fascist/elitist/egomaniacal mentality is offended by this, but honestly I could care less.

At least you might learn something: Ever heard the term "warm-blooded"? Well humans are warm-blooded animal species - we maintain thermal homeostasis.
Unfortunately it only works on the body as a whole so if you heat up part of your brain it wont help much.


How did your brain learn human speech? Hot packs heat the skin LOCALLY...JUST LIKE CELL PHONES. FFS Try it sometime if you can't grasp the concept.

Nothing like a straw man argument. I am saying that the *HYPOTHESIS* that "heat from intense cell phone usage might slightly rise cancer probability due to heating of brain tissue" is perfectly valid from scientific point of view.
Do you understand the difference between hypothesis and fact?


Yes but apparently YOU don't. I'd rather use the well established facts I've already been using to make an argument, not play the "what if" game and be so pretentious and ignorant as to claim this somehow trumps the FACTS.

It's also possible that cell phones attract invisible flying spaghetti monsters that mess with DNA but there is no more evidence for this than what you're talking about.

This is your hypothesis, if you wont to test it I wont stop you.


My point was without facts it's JUST AS VALID A hypothesis as yours is...next time I'll try to explain it to you as if you were three years old it MIGHT avoid further comprehension problems on your part.

Lol, this is a *fact*.
A *fact* which proves that anyone who argues there can be no possible mechanism by which cell phone radiation leads to increase in cancer prevalence is an ignorant fool as he argues without even knowing how the system works.


No it's a fact that proves that anyone who argues that there IS a mechanism (for which there is ZERO proof) that cell phone radiation DOES cause cancer is an ignorant fool.

All that can be argued today is that it is improbable and that the effect if it exist is small, but it is completely unacceptable to claim that it does not exist! Further research is needed!


No it can be argued that it does not cause cancer because there is no evidence for it. This is like saying you can argue that creationism is merely improbable because we don't fully understand the origins universe. Absolute nonsense.

I gave you 2 *possible* mechanisms which could explain it.


Stop right there, your possible mechanisms are irrelevant until you have some proof they actually do what you say they do. Especially since the facts say that microwave radiation doesn't effect DNA and hence can't cause cancer.

And tell me how do YOU know there isn't any?


I don't have to know that any more than I have to know that there are not any studies showing the earth to be flat. All I have to do is look at the data which states that microwave radiation can't mutate cells in humans and look at pictures from space respectively.

OK here's where I got completely bored with arguing whether or not the sky is blue with someone who is convinced it's green.

Basically if you can't show a mechanism kindly quit humping my leg and go talk to Art Bell about your feelings that cell phones are causing cancer or put here by aliens to kill us all or whatever other unsubstantiated nonsense about cell phones you can dream up
Velanarris
3.5 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2008
Do people really not see the parallels here?

They make you afraid of letting your kids out at night, they make you afriad to eat certain foods, then they make you afraid to use resources, and then they make you afraid of using communication.

Sounds an awful lot like many other episodes in the recent past.
Sirussinder
3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2008
bunch of hogwash from a bunch of nutballs, just like the same ones who think the LHC is dangerous!

Don't people know by now the experts are all knowing and you must trust them blindly? They can do no wrong their data proves it.
Velanarris
3.7 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2008
and a quick FYI to anyone who lives within a few hundred miles of a major city. If the radiation emitted by cell phones caused cancer, you'd already have cancer due to the presence and use of these very same waves for many decades in radio and satellite transmission.
Soylent
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 27, 2008
"We are not arguing that there is a link with cancer we are arguing that THERE MIGHT BE A LINK AND IT NEEDS TO BE TESTED FURTHER. This is the only way to scientific progress - further testing."

It's already been tested and ruled out countless times over 5 decades. I want my tax money to be used for something productive rather than re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-testing the effects of radiowaves on humans.
menkaur
4 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2008
although it looks like an other bullshit study, i'd like it to continue - may be it's true.... as long as there are no cell-phone-prohibitions or stuff... and it should be done by unbiased experts - or else we'll get a result like the one with global worming - where interested people authorized capital inflow... that is disgusting....
DoctorKnowledge
3 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2008
Oh! The end of the world from ecological catastrophe, or from a high-energy physics experiment gets only a few comments...but CELL PHONES! That's important. Lol. Welcome to the path to disaster -- your own interests.

I had an early cell phone that used to heat up the side of my head, and leave it sweating. No problem, they told me -- it's perfectly safe. Uh-uh. The really sexy woman in line behind me... from a microwave phone engineering lab (who'd been drinking far too much, on a regular basis from her complexion) got very angry when I suggested to the clerk there was any possible problem with cell phones. I have no doubt...the problem she was mostly worried about was her paycheck.
superhuman
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2008
"We are not arguing that there is a link with cancer we are arguing that THERE MIGHT BE A LINK AND IT NEEDS TO BE TESTED FURTHER. This is the only way to scientific progress - further testing."

It's already been tested and ruled out countless times over 5 decades. I want my tax money to be used for something productive rather than re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-testing the effects of radiowaves on humans.


Its hard to argue with someone who thinks cell phones has been tested for the last 50 years.

Show me one study from 50 years ago which tests effects of microwave generator of relevant wattage placed next to human head.

If you think that data on the hazard of power lines is relevant here, then you are very wrong.

Finally, tell me how do you explain increased cancer chance on the side of the head where people use cell phones?
Velanarris
4.5 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2008
"We are not arguing that there is a link with cancer we are arguing that THERE MIGHT BE A LINK AND IT NEEDS TO BE TESTED FURTHER. This is the only way to scientific progress - further testing."

It's already been tested and ruled out countless times over 5 decades. I want my tax money to be used for something productive rather than re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-testing the effects of radiowaves on humans.


Its hard to argue with someone who thinks cell phones has been tested for the last 50 years.

Show me one study from 50 years ago which tests effects of microwave generator of relevant wattage placed next to human head.

If you think that data on the hazard of power lines is relevant here, then you are very wrong.

Finally, tell me how do you explain increased cancer chance on the side of the head where people use cell phones?


SH: Cell phones have been tested by the military for 50 years . Current cellphones are all based off old military radio communication. All of which have been proven not to cause cancer.

As for the increased chance of cancer related to cell phone use, you'll have to show me a study that outlines that finding.
superhuman
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2008
Modernmystic, you are the worst example of scientific illiteracy. Not only your knowledge is very limited but you adamantly oppose anything that is in opposition to your beliefs. We are not arguing that there is a link with cancer we are arguing that THERE MIGHT BE A LINK AND IT NEEDS TO BE TESTED FURTHER. This is the only way to scientific progress - further testing.
If we ever decide we know enough and further testing is not required it will be the end of science.

The testing has been done for fifty years or more and there has been ZERO evidence of cancer caused by the frequencies we're talking about...period. There is simply no documented mechanism and until there is you're pissing in the wind because you haven't a scientific leg to stand on.


As above, show me one study from 50 years ago which tests effects of microwave generator of relevant wattage placed next to human head.

The FIRST and most important rule of science:
EXPERIMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING
The second most important rule:
If there is any doubt whatsoever it needs to be DECIDED BY EXPERIMENT;

Not according to you, according to you everything should be decided AGAINST experiment in favor of supposition garnered form people needing grant money they gain at the expense of fear mongering.

I see you are a fan conspiracy theories.

If human health is in danger it is even more important not to allow your prejudice get in the way of scientific inquiry.

If it were this statement might be valid.

But there isn't because YOU say so, nevermind the research published in peer reviewed journals.

And if its half the bloody human population that might be in danger arguing against further testing based on your ignorant beliefs is extremely irresponsible!

Are you acquainted with the idea of free speech and the free exchange of ideas? Or do you curl up with Mein Kamph every night with your warm milk?


Yes, if all else fails invoke free speech rights!

Heat shock is one of the most effective radiosensitizers known. As a result, combination of heat with ionizing radiation (IR) is considered a promising strategy in the management of human cancer. The mechanism of heat radiosensitization has been the subject of extensive work but a unifying mechanistic model is presently lacking.

IOW there is no proof of such...just idiotic supposition like the kind you've been inflicting on this thread ad nauseam.

It only seems idiotic to you cause you lack the necessary eduction, but thats not my fault.

Remember we are not arguing what happens but what MIGHT happen, so your position is really impossible to defend.

No actually it's quite the opposite since by definition you CAN'T support any position that says cell phones cause cancer. I on the other hand have fifty years of human beings being around much higher frequency non ionizing radiation than microwaves with no evidence it causes cancer.


Yes we are safe *BY DEFINITION*! Thats my favorite claim so far.

Let me guess, anything that proves you wrong is irrelevant?

No anything that claims DNA damage other than microwave radiation is tho.

I showed you how heating associated with cell phone use can lead to increase in DNA mutations.
Either you can't grasp the idea or you just dismiss it out of hand cause it doesn't fit your world view.

Haha, amazing that with your lack of knowledge about human biology you feel entitled to argue here.

Last time I checked there was no government gestapo one needed to apply to in order to espouse an opinion. Perhaps your fascist/elitist/egomaniacal mentality is offended by this, but honestly I could care less.

Well if you know nothing about a topic you should not voice your opinion. I am sorry if it looks to you like a "fascist/elitist/egomaniacal mentality" but thats how it is.

At least you might learn something: Ever heard the term "warm-blooded"? Well humans are warm-blooded animal species - we maintain thermal homeostasis.
Unfortunately it only works on the body as a whole so if you heat up part of your brain it wont help much.

How did your brain learn human speech? Hot packs heat the skin LOCALLY...JUST LIKE CELL PHONES. FFS Try it sometime if you can't grasp the concept.

Well to bad you were also talking about "long strolls on the beach". Think.

Nothing like a straw man argument. I am saying that the *HYPOTHESIS* that "heat from intense cell phone usage might slightly rise cancer probability due to heating of brain tissue" is perfectly valid from scientific point of view.
Do you understand the difference between hypothesis and fact?

Yes but apparently YOU don't. I'd rather use the well established facts I've already been using to make an argument, not play the "what if" game and be so pretentious and ignorant as to claim this somehow trumps the FACTS.

Facts are scientific research shows increase in cancer prevalence which occurs on the side of head on which people use cell phones.
But those facts are bad, aren't they? You have your OWN better facts, which you are happily using to spread disinformation.

It's also possible that cell phones attract invisible flying spaghetti monsters that mess with DNA but there is no more evidence for this than what you're talking about.

This is your hypothesis, if you wont to test it I wont stop you.

My point was without facts it's JUST AS VALID A hypothesis as yours is...next time I'll try to explain it to you as if you were three years old it MIGHT avoid further comprehension problems on your part.

If you think your hypothesis is as valid as the one I presented it's a great proof of your incompetence in the area we are discussing.

No it's a fact that proves that anyone who argues that there IS a mechanism (for which there is ZERO proof) that cell phone radiation DOES cause cancer is an ignorant fool.

Omg, your attention span is really limited, didn't I tell you to remember that I argue there *MIGHT BE* not that there is a link? Focus please.

All that can be argued today is that it is improbable and that the effect if it exist is small, but it is completely unacceptable to claim that it does not exist! Further research is needed!

No it can be argued that it does not cause cancer because there is no evidence for it. This is like saying you can argue that creationism is merely improbable because we don't fully understand the origins universe. Absolute nonsense.

But there is evidence, there are scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals.
But you of course know better.

I gave you 2 *possible* mechanisms which could explain it.

Stop right there, your possible mechanisms are irrelevant until you have some proof they actually do what you say they do. Especially since the facts say that microwave radiation doesn't effect DNA and hence can't cause cancer.

So let me get this right, you are saying that the mechanism is irrelevant until we can get a proof but we can't do research to try and find such proof cause there is no proof?
Do you even see your circular reasoning?

And as for the 2nd part I said microwave radiation could lead to mutations indirectly, *INDIRECTLY*, so it doesn't matter that it can't cause mutations on its own as mutations are created all the time and its enough if microwave radiation destabilizes repair!

And tell me how do YOU know there isn't any?

I don't have to know that any more than I have to know that there are not any studies showing the earth to be flat. All I have to do is look at the data which states that microwave radiation can't mutate cells in humans and look at pictures from space respectively.

I see, you know what you know and you don't need some dumb scientists to tell you how things are.

OK here's where I got completely bored with arguing whether or not the sky is blue with someone who is convinced it's green.

Or is it the place you realized you were wrong all along?

Basically if you can't show a mechanism kindly quit humping my leg and go talk to Art Bell about your feelings that cell phones are causing cancer or put here by aliens to kill us all or whatever other unsubstantiated nonsense about cell phones you can dream up


I showed you the mechanism, your own ignorance blinds you. The world is not as simple as you think. Try to stick to areas where you have some expertise (if there are such), cell biology certainly isn't one of them.

I also see you conveniently left out the most problematic part for your stance - the fact that a study shows the cancer has higher chance of occurrence on the side of the head where people use cell phones.
You said it may be due to other devices, well name them, what other devices used only by people who use mobile phones can lead to increased brain cancer occurrence?

So id like to sum up the discussion so far:

1. You know that microwave radiation used by cell phones is not ionizing and can't damage DNA.

2. Based on 1 you claim that cell phones can't rise cancer risk

3. I agree with 1 but not with 2.

4. I know that microwave radiation does not need to damage DNA directly to increases mutation rates. It can act indirectly for example by interfering with DNA repair. This invalidates the inference that 1 leads to 2.

5. You disagree with 4 but you fail to provide any arguments why this is not the case, based on your comments you seem to not understand how it can be possible.

6. There are quite a few scientific research papers that show an increase in cancer occurrence in cell phone users.

7. You claim that the research mentioned in 6 is wrong, scientists lie on purpose and that it is a part of a conspiracy to get grant money. You however fail to provide any proof of those claims, other then a misguided belief that 1 leads to 2.

Did I get your stance right?
Neurohacker2
3 / 5 (3) Sep 28, 2008
Cell Phones Can Interfear With the Human Brain in Many ways. And iys not The power output of the cell.
Nanoparticles in the Brain

Tiny particles enter the brain after being inhaled

JIM GILES / Nature 9jan04

Nanoparticles%u2014tiny lumps of matter that could one day to be used to build faster computer circuits and improve drug delivery systems%u2014can travel to the brain after being inhaled, according to researchers from the United States1.

The finding sounds a cautionary note for advocates of nanotechnology, but may also lead to a fuller understanding of the health effects of the nanosized particles produced by diesel engines.

Gunter Oberdorster of the University of Rochester in New York and colleagues tracked the progress of carbon particles that were only 35 nanometres in diameter and had been inhaled by rats. In the olfactory bulb%u2014an area of the brain that deals with smell%u2014nanoparticles were detected a day after inhalation, and levels continued to rise until the experiment ended after seven days.

"These are the first data to show this," says Ken Donaldson, a toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh, UK. "I would never have thought of looking for inhaled nanoparticles in the brain."

Substances such as drugs can cross from the brain into the blood, but Oberdorster believes that the carbon nanoparticles enter the brain by moving down the brain cells that pick up odours and transmit signals to the olfactory bulb. He says that unpublished work, in which his group blocked one of the rats' nostrils and tracked which side of the brain the nanoparticles reached, appears to confirm this.

Little is known about what effect nanoparticles will have when they reach the brain. The toxicity of the nanoparticles that are currently being used to build prototype nanosized electronic circuits%u2014such as carbon nanotubes, which are produced in labs around the world%u2014has not been thoroughly assessed.

But Donaldson says that there is a growing feeling that other nanoparticles, such as those produced by diesel exhausts, may be damaging to some parts of our body. He estimates that people in cities take in about 25 million nanoparticles with every breath. These particles are believed to increase respiratory and cardiac problems, probably by triggering an inflammatory reaction in the lungs.

Oberdorster's unpublished work includes evidence that some nanoparticles may trigger a similar inflammatory reaction in the brains of rats.

References
Oberdorster, G. et al. Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhalation Toxicology, (in press, 2004).

source: http://cmbi.bjmu....1/42.htm 17jan04

Hi All

Bye for now and from the Past.

Have a nice day!
neurohacker
bluechilihead
3 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2008
50 years on scientific studies may not have shown a correlation between non-ionizing radiation from cell phones and cancer, but the previous studies were based on the technolgy and methods available at the time. Historically well accepted theories have been overturned and reversed by breakthroughs in sciences. It is impossible to say that accepted science cannot be reversed without also beleiving that vulcan actually exists, that we dont have a heliocentric solar system, or that our bodies are regulated by the balance of humors. This is the nature of science, it is directly linked to our understanding of the world. As we learn more and understand more we will change and refine, and we must be willing to accept this change judiciously. We cannot befriend Morton's Demon and succumb to confirmation bias as it will hamper good science.
Bazz
4.5 / 5 (2) Sep 28, 2008
Like with all these controversial topics its impossible to know with any certainty whats going on exactly.

I try to keep up with the news and try to go by the most likely to be true explanation ,to me it seems that there are at least as many studies showing there is no risk than those suggesting otherwise.Its certainly not proven that there is any risk but to conclude there is no risk would be wrong, there is a need for convincing research as long as there are studies suggesting there might be cancer risks, and enough people believing in them.

The people dont benefit from a polarised view on any controversial subject ,its only beneficial for the ones who cash in on the uncertainty.
Duude
2 / 5 (4) Sep 28, 2008
This is so silly! Not that cell phone use may caused brain cancer. I've held that opinion for a while. What's so silly is how easy it is to fix. The problem is sticking the handset in your ear. Just buy a $20 earphone to plug into your cell phone. Problem fixed.
twango
5 / 5 (1) Sep 28, 2008
An amateur radio operator for over 40 years, I agree that I've not heard of any connection between hf/vhf/uhf signals and cancer. But I'd share these caveats:
1. There is no certainty in science. The level of cancers may have fallen below the confidence levels that technology allowed at that time. That was then, this is now.
2. The use of handsets by hams was a. at lower frequencies; b. lower frequency/duration than mobile users.
3. The inverse square law greatly diminishes exposure intensities for most personal radio communications.

Serious, highly qualified professionals are concerned. If there's one chance in a million of cancer, with a userbase of 1 billion, that's 1000 cancers. Whether someone *needs* to use cellphones is immaterial to the argument; the question is whether they've been advised of the risks, if any. That can only be decided by further experiment.
Soylent
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2008
Its hard to argue with someone who thinks cell phones has been tested for the last 50 years.


People have been working in close proximity to high powered radar and radio transmitters since world war II; spanning the entire range from hundreds of GHz(microwaves) to a few thousand Hz.
Soylent
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2008
50 years on scientific studies may not have shown a correlation between non-ionizing radiation from cell phones and cancer, but the previous studies were based on the technolgy and methods available at the time.


There will be no breakthroughs in statistics that will suddenly enable you to see a strong correlation in data where previously there was none.

It makes no sense to worry about any risk that could potentially be hiding down there in the noise because the magnitude is necessarily tiny and it could just as well be negative(i.e. reducing risk of brain cancer).
manojendu
3.7 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2008


Finally if brain tumor is indeed more likely to occur on the side of head where people keep their cell phones its really hard to argue its a coincidence!


Actually it's ridiculous to say there's a correlation since people probably use that ear in concert with many other devices too. It's like saying using a pencil causes tennis elbow because people write with the same hand that tennis elbow develops on. Never mind it's their dominant hand and they also use it to hold a racquet when they play tennis too...


If people have been writing with pencils for a hundred years and playing tennis for only 25 years and the statistical study shows that the occurrence tennis elbow has increased in last 20 years or so, then you know what is the cause!

The question is not to keep on doing the statistical survey until you find a correlation and then start the study on the cause.

And people like you you who get so emotional about such things are the worst ones to take any decisions about these topics.
manojendu
3 / 5 (2) Sep 29, 2008
There was a typo in my previous message!

The question is not to keep on doing the statistical survey


should read

The question is to keep on doing the statistical survey...
manojendu
3 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2008
I would think that if there were a significant danger from long term exposure to RF energy in the head that it would have been detected long ago in studies involving amateur radio operators. These people have been using using equipment with far higher RF output (several watts instead of milliwatts) on a regular basis on far longer time scales (a lot of their hand held equipment dates to the 1950's at least), and it is typically used in immediate proximity to the head just as cell phones are, but I have yet to see any studies linking use of these radios to any form of health risk.


Sorry, but this is downright "stupid", (pardon me for using this word!), the radio antenna is not carried on the head by the amateur operators, the receiver-transmitter system is carried near the body only in the war front where those poor guys die from a bullet shot anyways, so you can't make them a subject of long term study. But mobiles carry the receiver (antenna, if you want to call them) with them and are using them near the brain all the time.
malky
3.4 / 5 (5) Sep 29, 2008
Wow talk about agitated. Some pro mobile folks here remind me of others on conspiracy websites who are absolutely adamant that they are right about whatever subject is under discussion irrespective of any evidence. The subject is irrelevant what is relevant is the behaviour demonstrated. The agitation shown here is so severe it resembles an attack on someones belief of God. So is this what is happening here? To have any doubt about the safety of mobile phones is like an attack on God? Are people that sadly wedded to that little plastic box?
manojendu
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2008
Wow talk about agitated. Some pro mobile folks here remind me of others on conspiracy websites who are absolutely adamant that they are right about whatever subject is under discussion irrespective of any evidence. The subject is irrelevant what is relevant is the behaviour demonstrated. The agitation shown here is so severe it resembles an attack on someones belief of God. So is this what is happening here? To have any doubt about the safety of mobile phones is like an attack on God? Are people that sadly wedded to that little plastic box?


You are right, this agitation is the most disturbing aspect...
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) Sep 29, 2008
It isn't a matter of doing more studies. There is no point in doing studies to see if the world is round. There is also no point in doing studies to see if microwave radiation causes cancer, they've been done and it' doesn't.

No one here can show a mechanism for microwave radiation causing cancer for a good reason....
QubitTamer
2.3 / 5 (3) Sep 29, 2008
In my original post did i say anything about NON MAN-MADE EM radiation sources? Let me spell it out: Within the BROADCAST RADIO AND POWER TRANSMISSION SPECTRUM from MAN-MADE sources there are ZERO scientific studies which have found ANY direct correlation between the emanation of those sources and the formation of cancerous cells or structures. ZERO. Don't quote me the inverse square law unless your brand of cell phone has a magnatron in it operating at over 50 watts and you have it powered on and glued to your ear all day.

The next person to post that 'we need to take these concerns seriously' BETTER personally own some kind of mobile that emits more than 10 watts of power OUTSIDE of the aforementioned MAN-MADE BROADCAST RF SPECTRUM.

I agree with Modernmystic... most of you need to go stand next to a naked nuclear pile for several hours while measuring the EM radiation from your phones... then maybe natural selection will have done it's job with the lot of you.
Bazz
not rated yet Sep 29, 2008
Malky i dont see people killing each other over the subject, but i dont think you can blame some people to get upset when there is uncertainty about their health.

I would put it somwhere in the economics controversy range,not the god controversy range when it comes to agitation.

But i get what you`re sugesting.
QubitTamer
not rated yet Sep 30, 2008
Malky, i don't think anyone, including me is pro mobile. What i am is aggressively anti-stupid, especially when it comes to fearmongering for the sake of profit or profit looting. I would be just as aggressive if mobile operators started claiming that cell phone use promoted healthy teeth and gums or some such bollocks.

Personally i think all private vehicles should have a cell phone signal damper that engages when the vehicle is in motion to stop the one true major health risk of cell phone use: texting or talking while driving.
nano999
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2008
Wow, look at all the experts commenting here.
Bazz
1 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2008
Yes we know all there is to know about bs.
googleplex
1 / 5 (1) Sep 30, 2008
Cell Phones Can Interfear With the Human Brain in Many ways. And iys not The power output of the cell.
Nanoparticles in the Brain

Tiny particles enter the brain after being inhaled

JIM GILES / Nature 9jan04

Nanoparticles%u2014tiny lumps of matter that could one day to be used to build faster computer circuits and improve drug delivery systems%u2014can travel to the brain after being inhaled, according to researchers from the United States1.

The finding sounds a cautionary note for advocates of nanotechnology, but may also lead to a fuller understanding of the health effects of the nanosized particles produced by diesel engines.

Gunter Oberdorster of the University of Rochester in New York and colleagues tracked the progress of carbon particles that were only 35 nanometres in diameter and had been inhaled by rats. In the olfactory bulb%u2014an area of the brain that deals with smell%u2014nanoparticles were detected a day after inhalation, and levels continued to rise until the experiment ended after seven days.

"These are the first data to show this," says Ken Donaldson, a toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh, UK. "I would never have thought of looking for inhaled nanoparticles in the brain."

Substances such as drugs can cross from the brain into the blood, but Oberdorster believes that the carbon nanoparticles enter the brain by moving down the brain cells that pick up odours and transmit signals to the olfactory bulb. He says that unpublished work, in which his group blocked one of the rats' nostrils and tracked which side of the brain the nanoparticles reached, appears to confirm this.

Little is known about what effect nanoparticles will have when they reach the brain. The toxicity of the nanoparticles that are currently being used to build prototype nanosized electronic circuits%u2014such as carbon nanotubes, which are produced in labs around the world%u2014has not been thoroughly assessed.

But Donaldson says that there is a growing feeling that other nanoparticles, such as those produced by diesel exhausts, may be damaging to some parts of our body. He estimates that people in cities take in about 25 million nanoparticles with every breath. These particles are believed to increase respiratory and cardiac problems, probably by triggering an inflammatory reaction in the lungs.

Oberdorster's unpublished work includes evidence that some nanoparticles may trigger a similar inflammatory reaction in the brains of rats.

References
Oberdorster, G. et al. Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhalation Toxicology, (in press, 2004).

source: http://cmbi.bjmu....1/42.htm 17jan04

Hi All

Bye for now and from the Past.

Have a nice day!
neurohacker


Good post, although I think you meant to put it in the nanoparticle news item.

I would add that diesel particles cannot be filtered by the lungs as they are too fine. They have been found as the seed inside many embolisms. Diesel fumes are very nasty. For some reason that billowing black smoke is exempt from emissions standards even here in California. One wonders how much damage this does to the arterial walls.