Comments on: Update on Cell Phones and Brain Cancer

By: erichirota

erichirota — Wed, 13 Jul 2011 22:15:00 +0000

Didn't a bunch of scientists from WHO come out with a letter accusing some of their execs being previously long term employees of Motorola? And isn't the IARC funded by the Mobile Manufacturers’ Forums (an international association of telecom manufacturers) and the GSM Association (a manufacturer of mobile phones). The government is obviously putting pressure on the IARC and other research groups... Besides, my neighbor was recently diagnosed with a malignant glioma and he had a satellite dish for his internet that he was using for 10 years right next to his bed on his balcony, so idk...

By: Science-Based Medicine » Cell phones and cancer again, or: Oh, no! My cell phone’s going to give me cancer! (revisited)

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 05:02:27 +0000

[...] studies looking at whether there is a link between mobile phone use and cancer. One of these our fearless leader Steve Novella has already discussed, but there was another one that he didn’t see because it didn’t [...]

By: tmac57

tmac57 — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 16:52:45 +0000

One thing is for sure, there is an increased risk of being mistaken for a schizophrenic when using a hands free device while walking alone in public.

By: DavidCT

DavidCT — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:53:08 +0000

The vary term “cell phone usage” is a mixed bag. How many cell phones we use today are comparable in radiation output to the phones used in the past when the lack of towers required higher wattages. Heavy usage today with lower transmission wattage is not what it was 10 years ago. When we have more definitive studies in 5 years, will the equipment even be the same?

By: Tracy W

Tracy W — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:44:16 +0000

What I find striking about the cellphone-cancer link story is that people are not abandoning cellphones en masse in response, any more than they are abandoning car driving. It seems that people are quite willing to tolerate risk as long as they personally directly see benefits from the behaviour.

And car driving is worse in terms of a moral perspective because by driving a car you put other people, such as pedestrians, at risk. I still drive.

By: TRC

TRC — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:59:05 +0000

Although I know this comment will ratchet down the intellectual ‘atmosphere’ produced by comments thus far, I feel I must make it…

Any cell phone/brain cancer discussion immediately I think HAS to include Ace Ventura:Pet Detective circa 1994.

Jim Carey as Ace tells Lt. Einhorn to “Be careful with that phone…In time, you could develop a tumor”.

Of course, I chuckle, and then think it’s ironic how Carey is now the poster boy for the anti-vaccination scare-mongering, and probably, would move off into the anti-cell phone usage campaign if there could be a connection found between autism and Verizon contracts.

Keep up the great work, Dr. Novella! Love the blog!

TRC
http://therecoveringchristian.wordpress.com

By: Potato

Potato — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 09:00:14 +0000

You’re forgetting that not everything is photoelectric. Physicists were screaming that biological effects of RF (not just cancer) were impossible, until after the effects were proven. Many animals (esp. birds) can navigate by the earth’s magnetic field. In birds at least, this depends on a free-radical recombination reaction that can be disrupted by an RF field. If cellphones similarly act on some free radical recombination reaction that through some biological pathway can lead to cancer (or attention/decision making changes that could lead to say car crashes) then it’s worth investigating, especially given the prevalence.

Fortunately (unfortunately?) the effect, if there at all, appears to be very small, so it’s very difficult to tease out of these observational studies (which always have a number of confounds lying under the surface — one that was raised at the last conference was that one of the epidemiological studies was grouping people by cellphone use but not controlling for other RF exposure like WiFi or portable (non-cellular) phones in the home).

By: scotth

scotth — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:01:37 +0000

Earlier I was confusing CrookedTimber’s post with a reply from Steve. Sorry if I confused anyone (besides myself).

And johnc…. Read the link CrookedTimber posted, what I said, and Michael Varney is saying. This is open and shut. The inverse square law does not come into play (other than after the frequency has been increased to ionizing levels).

And remember…. microwave ovens were originally known as ‘radar ranges’. That is because they are driven with parts straight from the world of RADAR. I know exactly how they work. It is true that high power RF can harm you, but only through thermal effects (making something hot). Giving cancer is something else entirely.

By: Michael Varney

Michael Varney — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:11:30 +0000

“It will probably be 5 years or more before we have a strong consensus on the long term risks of cell phone use.”

Nature does not need a consensus from us. The physics is pretty clear, theoretically and empirically.

The energy of a photon at the wavelengths used in telecommunications is far to low to produce the ionizing radiation required for DNA damage.
And no, increasing the number of photons will not do anything different, just read about the photo-electric effect. And no, time of exposure will not do anything different for the same reasons.

Thermal energy could be a different story, but a cell phone puts out a small amount of power. If you are concerned do a calorimeter study and see how much you can raise the temperature of a given substance via microwave heating. Over 4pi steradians the heat produced is trivial in the human body, and even if focused by the antenna in a cell phone the energy/area is very small.
So cooking is out.

Sorry Dr. Novella, but even allaying the fears of your readers by suggesting use of inverse square law (distance) or hands free is simply leading credence to the idea that there is a danger.

Secondly, comparing a risk assessment with respect to automobiles, which have very sound physics behind how they can hurt you (F=ma and various conservation laws), and cell phones (which are all but ruled out by physics) can only serve to validate the fears of the general public.

By: johnc

johnc — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 18:18:03 +0000

BTW – I’d be far more concerned about terahertz devices. There is some evidence they can mess with DNA, again,like microwaves, it’s about resonance, not energy:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24331/