Mobile Phone Brain Cancer Debate Rages On

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
A new study recently published by researchers in Scandinavia indicates that there appears to be no link between mobile phone use and the incidence of brain tumors. As can be expected, another group differs in opinion and so the debate continues.

The study shows no increase in either of two kinds of brain tumors during the informative time period after cellphones were introduced, said Michael J. Thun, vice president emeritus of epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society. "What is clear is that the radio frequencies emitted by cellphones are not strong enough to damage DNA," he told TechNewsWorld.
Click to expand...
 
Why does any of this research really matter? Even if every study concluded that cell phones cause brain cancer, no one is going to stop using their mobile phones (I know I wouldn't).

So many essential parts of our everyday lives are carcinogenic - plastic, cell phones, wifi, pesticides, growth hormones - that there's no use in trying to prevent it. We should instead focus all of our efforts on finding a cure for the damn disease.
 
Yea, people will continue to cook their brains...

But in Europe there is no debate about it, they are already are past this part.

The fix is to change the frequency of the devices.
 
CMD said:
Yea, people will continue to cook their brains...

But in Europe there is no debate about it, they are already are past this part.

The fix is to change the frequency of the devices.
Click to expand...

Or just use a bluetooth headset...
 
CMD said:
Yea, people will continue to cook their brains...

But in Europe there is no debate about it, they are already are past this part.

The fix is to change the frequency of the devices.
Click to expand...

Different frequencies have different effects? I didn't know that.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Different frequencies have different effects? I didn't know that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, 2.41 is more or less the resonant frequency of water (microwaves), but yet, cordless phones, wireless internet, and (I think) Digital TV use it.
 
There are so many things in life that can make you sick, if you were to stop using them all, what would be left could hardly be called life. You'd be sitting alone in a bubble eating vitamins.

Despite all our gadgetry and all this stuff that is supposedly "killing us", our life expectancies continue to increase. That tells me it doesn't really matter.
 
NKDietrich said:
There are so many things in life that can make you sick, if you were to stop using them all, what would be left could hardly be called life. You'd be sitting alone in a bubble eating vitamins.

Despite all our gadgetry and all this stuff that is supposedly "killing us", our life expectancies continue to increase. That tells me it doesn't really matter.
Click to expand...

actually, vitamins can be deadly in large doses as well.
 
Better safe than sorry, this is why I like to use a headset now. That and I don't like holding a big phone next to my head either. :)
 
well, if a report was to state that these phones causes cancer, all we can expect is not a shify away from handphone usage, but rather a new range phones. Only reason why some companies would hate it would be because some of them never took into account radiation levels during the design phase....

BTW brain tumors? I would worry more about testicular cancer.
 
Serpico said:
Better safe than sorry, this is why I like to use a headset now. That and I don't like holding a big phone next to my head either. :)
Click to expand...

People come into my store and tell me those cause cancer too ...
 
Serpico said:
Better safe than sorry, this is why I like to use a headset now. That and I don't like holding a big phone next to my head either. :)
Click to expand...

Bluetooth-enabled iPhone 3Gs + Bluetooth capable Phonak Naida hearing aids = win

:-D
 
SirKronan said:
People come into my store and tell me those cause cancer too ...
Click to expand...

If they do, then my audiologist would have warned me before recommending my hearing aids. Or so I hope he would.
 
touche said:
Yeah, 2.41 is more or less the resonant frequency of water (microwaves), but yet, cordless phones, wireless internet, and (I think) Digital TV use it.
Click to expand...

doesnt bluetooth run at 2.4Ghz too?

Bluetooth provides a way to connect and exchange information between devices such as mobile phones, telephones, laptops, personal computers, printers, Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers, digital cameras, and video game consoles through a secure, globally unlicensed Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) 2.4 GHz short-range radio frequency bandwidth.
Click to expand...
 
I guess until some emails are leaked we are not going to find out which side is supressing information.. :)
 
What about when you are not connected to someone? I fell asleep one day with my phone being right on my pillow so I'm just wondering if that would have the same effect as if it was on.
 
I tend to be skeptical about cell phones causing cancer, but.....

One of the common problems seen when reports are made about studies is that they generally fail to give context in the headlines.
I'm not saying that they always try to hide pertinent data or slant opinion (although that also happens), but it's impossible to write a headline that accurately captures the story.

In this particular study, the demographic was Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden from 1974 to 2003.

What the writer of the article fails to state is whether or not that demographic is reflective of all countries or not.

Research is often narrow-focus and it would benefit the reader to know if similar studies have been conducted in other parts of the world for comparison.
That, to me, is part of the reporter's job.

From the article:
"The researchers who put out the Scandinavian study warned that it was inconclusive. For one thing, it may not have covered a long enough timeline, they said. For another, they pointed out that they had only looked at the records of people with cancer and had not studied raw data on patients. They suggested more research is needed."

Another issue that I usually have with news reports of this nature:
They will state some finding from a study, then ask some other researcher in the field for an opinion.
They will then ask a another researcher a different question and state the resulting answer.
Frequently, they fail to ask the same questions of all researchers cited.
This can leave you with a skewed picture of each individual researcher's opinion.

Further, the journalism standards have dropped dramatically over the years.
This often results in bad article structure, leading to confusion.

In this particular article, the author switches between two studies.
The last four paragraphs of the article leave one with the impression that the second study cited states contradictory results.
The writer fails to indicate that they have switched back to discussing the first study in the last two paragraphs.

Lastly, and independent of all the above:
Research will always lag behind by 5 years or more.
This makes it difficult to gauge the impact of newer/different technologies on the overall picture.
 
HOCP4ME said:
Why does any of this research really matter? Even if every study concluded that cell phones cause brain cancer, no one is going to stop using their mobile phones (I know I wouldn't).

So many essential parts of our everyday lives are carcinogenic - plastic, cell phones, wifi, pesticides, growth hormones - that there's no use in trying to prevent it. We should instead focus all of our efforts on finding a cure for the damn disease.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I think it's becoming a non-issue these days anyway. What, with bluetooth headsets and people using their phones largely as messaging devices and not phones(I rarely make actual phone-calls with mine). The strength of the signal falls off at the square of the distance, so the difference between holding it in your lap or a few inches below your face and holding it against your head is pretty big.
 
Just some reference data . . shamelessly copied.

"Wireless LAN protocols, such as Bluetooth and the IEEE 802.11 specifications, also use microwaves in the 2.4 GHz ISM band, although 802.11a uses ISM band and U-NII frequencies in the 5 GHz range. Licensed long-range (up to about 25 km) Wireless Internet Access services in the 3.5–4.0 GHz range. . Dozens of service providers across the country are securing or have already received licenses from the FCC to operate 3.65 GHz. band. The WIMAX service offerings that can be carried on the 3.65 GHz band.
Metropolitan-area networks: MAN protocols, such as WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) based in the IEEE 802.16 specification. The IEEE 802.16 specification was designed to operate between 2 to 11 GHz. The commercial implementations are in the 2.3 GHz, 2.5 GHz, 3.5 GHz and 5.8 GHz ranges.
Wide Area Mobile Broadband Wireless Access: MBWA protocols based on standards specifications such as IEEE 802.20 or ATIS/ANSI HC-SDMA (e.g. iBurst) are designed to operate between 1.6 and 2.3 GHz .
Some mobile phone networks, like GSM, use the low-microwave/high-UHF frequencies around 1.8 and 1.9 GHz in the Americas and elsewhere, respectively. DVB-SH and S-DMB use 1.452 to 1.492 GHz, while proprietary/incompatible satellite radio in the U.S. uses around 2.3 GHz for DARS."

"A microwave oven passes (non-ionizing) microwave radiation (at a frequency near 2.45 GHz) through food, causing dielectric heating by absorption of energy in the water, fats and sugar contained in the food. "
"A common misconception is that microwave ovens cook food from the "inside out". In reality, microwaves are absorbed in the outer layers of food in a manner somewhat similar to heat from other methods"

  • Microwave oven 500 - 2000 watts.
  • Bluetooth 1-100 mW (most headsets are 1-2.5 mW)
  • typical Cell phones range from .3 to 2 watts
  • CB transmitters range from 4-12 watts

Results?
A few orders of magnitudes difference in power and differing frequency's
Heating is possible BUT nothing out side of normal operating rage for the tissue. (brain is much less of a problem here then the skin in close proximity and the eyes that do not regulate heat as well)
"most of the heating effect will occur at the surface of the head, causing its temperature to increase by a fraction of a degree."
Think about it, (a fairly close analogy) we are talking about the difference between a small flashlight and a Studio lamp. . . you can measure they heat from both but the flashlight is negotiable and the Studio lamp can cook and burn you.
You do more to heating your head by walking into a sunny day or exercising my a large margin then any cell phone.

So heating effects are out . .

There are other possibilities but allot are vanishingly small effects, unrepeatable, unreliable and really out there are some are entirely pseudo-science based. (but there is always a possibility so they should be checked but thrown out if they do not show repeatable results)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity - pseudo-science (insanely easy to debunk)

Genotoxic effects - "Reviews of in vitro genotoxicity studies have generally concluded that RF is not genotoxic and that studies reporting positive effects had experimental deficiencies"

Cancer - All over the place. . most studies show no correlation . . some did. the problem here is the way most of the data is gathered and used over long periods of time . . and meta-studies are notoriously easy to pollute. So more controlled study needs to be done to harden up the results. (again if it does the mechanism also needs to be found)

and so on . . . most are tentative at best (and despite what most people think) Scientists NEVER state categorically that something is 100% safe or dangerous as that is a fantasy. So they will always couch any result with "as far as we have determined" "needs to be explored further" etc
Also to make things worse . . people are making money on the hysteria and promoting bad studies and selling crazy "fixes".

So it seems so far . . effectively your flashlight, junk food, supplemental vitamins, herbal remedies, car, bathtub, etc have more chance to harm or kill you then any cell phone . . (short of being thrown at your head :p)
So we should really get over it . . . and ban any of the above! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top