Oh noes cell phones cause cancer!

[Ysidro]

Or maybe not. Essentially a doctor in my hometown is saying this now. Am I wrong in thinking "Chicken Little" yet again? Haven't we heard this before?


PITTSBURGH (AP) — The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer.

The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now — especially when it comes to children.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hwzQ6Jsq3cSWa721yR84l99_pnlAD923R4DO1

[Reed]

basing his alarm on early unpublished data

Given the many other studies that failed to show a link, isn't Herberman's warning a bit premature? Shouldn't he wait for the rigors of peer review before yelling 'fire'?

[Mick Houlahan]

I especially like the bit about secondhand electromagnetic radiation, and the appeal to save the children. :D

[Bee]

I can go one better than that. At our local secondary school one parent refuses to allow their child into the IT lab because of all the cancer-inducing transmissions radiating from the computers.

It may be interesting to try and find out if they have a TV at home.

[Aitch]

What you need* is one of these: Hi-Tech Woo (http://tinyurl.com/472ulg)

* Like you need a hole in the head :D

[Soapy Sam]

I wonder how many people who complain about the dangers of cellphones are just grumpy old men like me, who resent the ill-mannered , loud, intrusive use of the things in public?

Last week I was driving with a friend in my passenger seat. A warm day, windows open to save the planet(!) I pulled up at a junction, as a car pulled up on my left, whereupon my normally polite(but middle aged, grumpy and male) passenger poured out a torrent of scathing comment on the driver of an adjacent car, who was talking on a cellphone- and who actually swapped it from one hand to the other to change gear (manual transmission) and pull away, letting go of all controls in the process.
The things can get you killed, I tell 'ee! (This is why I don't want drivers to have handguns).

[Ashles]

He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now — especially when it comes to children.
Take action based on what? If scientific research takes too long then presumably he is acting on unscentific research . And that's different from random guessing... how?

"I know science implies that smoking is bad for you, but science is too slow - I think we should force kids to smoke from age 3 and then do more research later."

How on earth could somebody with such an opinion about scientific research be head of a cancer laboratory? Makes you wonder what untested treatments he is illegally trying on his patient because he can't wait for slow old pesky science.

[leon_heller]

I wonder how many people who complain about the dangers of cellphones are just grumpy old men like me, who resent the ill-mannered , loud, intrusive use of the things in public?


Here in the UK we have a comedian (Dom Joly) who gets filmed for sketches for his TV programmes in the street, on buses and on trains, bellowing into a very large (about a yard long) mock-up of a mobile phone. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lOpV5c2OQ

Leon

[Ysidro]

Given the many other studies that failed to show a link, isn't Herberman's warning a bit premature? Shouldn't he wait for the rigors of peer review before yelling 'fire'?

Of course it's premature, but OMG THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!!!! We can't wait for PROOF!

I can't tell you how much this pisses me off. I'm probably only reacting so strongly because this story seems to be everywhere and it started in my hometown. Le sigh.

[Jimbo07]

If anyone ever needed proof that doctors aren't scientists... :rolleyes:

[patrick767]

I'm extremely disturbed that the head of a cancer research center along with the center's director of environmental oncology would take such a horribly unscientific approach. If anyone should know better, it's them. What are they thinking?!

And from the article:
"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.

But it's not just that we lack definitive proof. Studies have been done and to my knowledge we still have NO indication of a problem.

[Vorticity]

From this weeks "What's New" by Bob Park:


CANCER: WHAT EINSTEIN KNEW ABOUT CELL PHONES.

By now everyone has heard the news frenzy over Ronald Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, advising faculty and staff to limit cell phone use because there is no proof that it's not a cancer risk. Nonsense! All cancer agents act by disrupting chemical bonds. In a classic 2001 op-ed LBL physicist Robert Cahn explained that Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker.


http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN08/wn072508.html

[Spunk-Monkey]

Over the last few years i've heard about (and actually read through) some of the studies that have found no correlation between phones and cancer, but can anyone recommend any sites that list the actual studies and peer review comments?

Also, I was under the impression that most forms of radiation cannot penetrate human tissues anyway, at least, not deep enough to reach the brain; therefore, as the argument goes, any actual causation would be evidenced by an increase in ear-based melanoma rather than brain tumors. Any thoughts on this, true/false/irrelevant?

Thanks!

[maxpower1227]

Over the last few years i've heard about (and actually read through) some of the studies that have found no correlation between phones and cancer, but can anyone recommend any sites that list the actual studies and peer review comments?

Also, I was under the impression that most forms of radiation cannot penetrate human tissues anyway, at least, not deep enough to reach the brain; therefore, as the argument goes, any actual causation would be evidenced by an increase in ear-based melanoma rather than brain tumors. Any thoughts on this, true/false/irrelevant?

Thanks!

I was under a similar impression: that electromagnetic radiation loses its power (is attenuated) as it passes through a lossy dielectric medium. The loss of power is usually a function of the distance into the medium as measured in wavelengths (as well as other factors like the permittivity of the medium), and "skin depth" is a common metric used to denote the distance at which a certain amount of power is lost. Since it's related to wavelength, radiation with shorter wavelengths (higher frequency) should lose its power in a shorter distance, so higher-frequency radiation does not penetrate as deep. Strangely, this seems to contradict what another poster said about UV rays being more harmful than infrared.

[Round Robin]

Thankfully, another Yinzer (this one, a Physics prof at Pitt) was embarrassed enough by this incident to write a deliciously skeptical commentary in this morning's Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's actually rather well written--not dumbed down, but also accessible. It made my coffee taste extra good.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08216/901196-109.stm

[DoubtingStephen]

Thankfully, another Yinzer (this one, a Physics prof at Pitt) was embarrassed enough by this incident to write a deliciously skeptical commentary in this morning's Pittsburgh Post Gazette. It's actually rather well written--not dumbed down, but also accessible. It made my coffee taste extra good.

http://www.postgazette.com/pg/08216/901196-109.stm

Excellent article! It improved the taste of my Nicaraguan dark roast from 2500 miles away!

[Tubbythin]

I was under a similar impression: that electromagnetic radiation loses its power (is attenuated) as it passes through a lossy dielectric medium. The loss of power is usually a function of the distance into the medium as measured in wavelengths (as well as other factors like the permittivity of the medium), and "skin depth" is a common metric used to denote the distance at which a certain amount of power is lost. Since it's related to wavelength, radiation with shorter wavelengths (higher frequency) should lose its power in a shorter distance, so higher-frequency radiation does not penetrate as deep. Strangely, this seems to contradict what another poster said about UV rays being more harmful than infrared.

In order to cause cancer, the radiation needs to ionize the medium. For this you have to look at EM radiation as being made of photons of energy equal to hf (where h is the Planck constant equal to 4.14*10-15 eV s and f is the frequency of the radiation in Hz). The ionization energy for hydrogen, for example, is 13.6 eV. Thus to ionize hydrogen requires photons of E>13.6 eV. Or radiation with f>13.6/4.14*10-15 Hz= 3,300 ThZ. Thats equivalent to about 90 nm which is well into the UV spectrum.

[Eos of the Eons]

Already linked above, but with some emphaisis added for clarity. I have never seen a test show that anything like cell phones could affect living cells in a way that would cause cancer.


In a classic 2001 op-ed LBL physicist Robert Cahn explained that Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing, in effect, that cell phones can’t cause cancer.

The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause cancer (of what it has shone on, like skin, but not brain, lung, or anything covered by skin).

Red light, on the opposite end of the spectrum, is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker than red light (far far too weak to cause any kind of cancer).

-Robert L. Park

[maxpower1227]

In order to cause cancer, the radiation needs to ionize the medium. For this you have to look at EM radiation as being made of photons of energy equal to hf (where h is the Planck constant equal to 4.14*10-15 eV s and f is the frequency of the radiation in Hz). The ionization energy for hydrogen, for example, is 13.6 eV. Thus to ionize hydrogen requires photons of E>13.6 eV. Or radiation with f>13.6/4.14*10-15 Hz= 3,300 ThZ. Thats equivalent to about 90 nm which is well into the UV spectrum.

True, but I think the article still glosses over some points. The amount of hf energy is a factor, but the energy density should be a factor as well. Also, UV radiation should have a lower skin depth as I mentioned, so all of its energy would get dissipated in the skin. In order to cause other types of cancer (brain cancer, or whatever else people want to claim is caused by cell phones), the radiation has to have a sufficient wavelength to penetrate deep enough into your tissue, but a sufficient energy to cause cancer. Those seem to be two competing parameters.

Such is my understanding anyway. It's been a while since I took a course on E&M.

[Tubbythin]

True, but I think the article still glosses over some points. The amount of hf energy is a factor, but the energy density should be a factor as well.
The energy density is only a factor when the energy of the photons is above the threshold for ionization to occur. If the photon energy is above the ionization energy then higher energy density means a high density of ionization and a greater likelyhood of cancer. If the energy of the photons is below the threshold for ionization then the number of ions created is 0, independent of energy density.


Also, UV radiation should have a lower skin depth as I mentioned, so all of its energy would get dissipated in the skin. In order to cause other types of cancer (brain cancer, or whatever else people want to claim is caused by cell phones), the radiation has to have a sufficient wavelength to penetrate deep enough into your tissue, but a sufficient energy to cause cancer. Those seem to be two competing parameters.
Agreed. But the fact that the latter consideration is not met makes the former consideration rather moot.

[neutrino_cannon]

The energy density is only a factor when the energy of the photons is above the threshold for ionization to occur. If the photon energy is above the ionization energy then higher energy density means a high density of ionization and a greater likelyhood of cancer. If the energy of the photons is below the threshold for ionization then the number of ions created is 0, independent of energy density.

Nonsense! Haven't you seen plasma generated in a microwave before? I submit that it is entirely possible to strip electrons using radio waves!

All cell phones should bear the warning label:

"If your cell phone gets hot enough to turn your hair into plasma, you may be at an elevated risk for the development of cancerous tumors."

[maxpower1227]

Agreed. But the fact that the latter consideration is not met makes the former consideration rather moot.

What is the required energy to ionize human tissue? You gave the number for hydrogen, but the ionization energies for heavier elements goes as 13.6/n^2 eV, so at higher orbitals electrons require less energy to be ionized (being further from the nucleus and shielded from its pull by the lower electrons). As the ionization energy decreases, the frequency threshold should go down.

[Eos of the Eons]

Nonsense! Haven't you seen plasma generated in a microwave before? I submit that it is entirely possible to strip electrons using radio waves!

All cell phones should bear the warning label:

"If your cell phone gets hot enough to turn your hair into plasma, you may be at an elevated risk for the development of cancerous tumors."
:D

I'd love to see the scenario of that heat generation, and hair turned into plasma, and then see what is left to get tumors. Gotta be a vid there somewhere, animated.

[maxpower1227]

What is the required energy to ionize human tissue? You gave the number for hydrogen, but the ionization energies for heavier elements goes as 13.6/n^2 eV, so at higher orbitals electrons require less energy to be ionized (being further from the nucleus and shielded from its pull by the lower electrons). As the ionization energy decreases, the frequency threshold should go down.

Ok, it looks like the ionization energy of, say, calcium, is only about half that of hydrogen, which puts the minimum frequency still well in the UV range. Pretty much every element has a first ionization energy on the same order of magnitude.

[Brian-M]

When I was studying electrical engineering and the subject high-powered microwave transmitters came up, we were told about the dangers of microwave radiation, which revolved around how much heat it generates in your tissues. According to the instructor, there are no cumulative effects, so if you didn't get exposed long enough to cause tissue damage, then there's no long term harm.

If microwave radiation can cause cancer, wouldn't the communications technicians exposed to huge daily doses from microwave transmitters be the first to know about it? A few milliwatts from a mobile phone hardly seems worth worrying about, especially as researches still haven't found any mechanism (as far as I'm aware) by which microwaves could cause cancer

[Tubbythin]

Ok, it looks like the ionization energy of, say, calcium, is only about half that of hydrogen, which puts the minimum frequency still well in the UV range. Pretty much every element has a first ionization energy on the same order of magnitude.

Yes ('http://science.jrank.org/pages/3677/Ion-Ionization-Ionization-energy.html'). Hydrogen was the only one I knew off-hand.

[Tubbythin]

Nonsense! Haven't you seen plasma generated in a microwave before? I submit that it is entirely possible to strip electrons using radio waves!


True. I think cancer would be the last thing I was worrying about if the temperature of my brain was ~ 105 K.

[maxpower1227]

When I was studying electrical engineering and the subject high-powered microwave transmitters came up, we were told about the dangers of microwave radiation, which revolved around how much heat it generates in your tissues. According to the instructor, there are no cumulative effects, so if you didn't get exposed long enough to cause tissue damage, then there's no long term harm.

If microwave radiation can cause cancer, wouldn't the communications technicians exposed to huge daily doses from microwave transmitters be the first to know about it? A few milliwatts from a mobile phone hardly seems worth worrying about, especially as researches still haven't found any mechanism (as far as I'm aware) by which microwaves could cause cancer

I think cell phones transmit at about 1 W, but your point still stands.

[robinson]

Evidence based science shows heavy cell phone use, especially in remote areas, is directly connected to an increased cancer risk, for a very small number of cancers.


On the positive side, kids text more than they talk sometimes, so even with heavy use they are keeping the transmitter away from the danger zones.

Except now they also don't want you to keep a phone in your pocket all the time.

It reminds me of when the Cops complained there was an awful lot of groin cancer showing up in Cops who used radar guns.

The cops didn't wait for absolute evidence that keeping a warm radar gun in your lap, while waiting for the next car, might have something to do with it. They stopped doing it long before the leaking radar energy was found to be the culprit.

The OP is bogus. Research shows heavy cell phone use is associated with an increased cancer rate, of certain specific kinds of cancers. Not the same thing as saying cell phones cause cancer.

Anyone who is on a cell phone all the time, will of course reject any and all evidence that there could be any effect. I say good. Talk on your phone 12 hours a day. It couldn't happen to a nicer person.

[GreyICE]

@Robinson

Is there ANY flavor of woo you won't buy?

[Tubbythin]

Robinson a few weeks ago: ('http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3886434&postcount=925')

Again, no links, no information, just a claim "I posted a list", which considering this topic, should have been posted here.

I don't know about anyone else, but lazy annoying insulting anonymous peeps who claim to know stuff, but provide little or no evidence, are boring. And get ingored.

But that is just me.

Robinson today:
Evidence based science shows heavy cell phone use, especially in remote areas, is directly connected to an increased cancer risk, for a very small number of cancers.


On the positive side, kids text more than they talk sometimes, so even with heavy use they are keeping the transmitter away from the danger zones.

Except now they also don't want you to keep a phone in your pocket all the time.

It reminds me of when the Cops complained there was an awful lot of groin cancer showing up in Cops who used radar guns.

The cops didn't wait for absolute evidence that keeping a warm radar gun in your lap, while waiting for the next car, might have something to do with it. They stopped doing it long before the leaking radar energy was found to be the culprit.

The OP is bogus. Research shows heavy cell phone use is associated with an increased cancer rate, of certain specific kinds of cancers. Not the same thing as saying cell phones cause cancer.

Anyone who is on a cell phone all the time, will of course reject any and all evidence that there could be any effect. I say good. Talk on your phone 12 hours a day. It couldn't happen to a nicer person.

[Brian-M]

I think cell phones transmit at about 1 W, but your point still stands.


I should have said a few hundred milliwatts, sorry about that. Phones lower their transmission signal when you're closer to the base station, so I guess people in rural areas do get a higher dose.

How do you do a proper study of the effects, anyway? Given the prevalence of cell-phone use, you can't divide a massive trial group into cell-phone users and non-users arbitrarily, and simply comparing rates of cancer between existing cell-phone and non-cell-phone users lends itself to interference from whatever life-style differences accompany a person's reason for having/not-having a cell-phone.

[Spunk-Monkey]

Evidence based science shows heavy cell phone use, especially in remote areas, is directly connected to an increased cancer risk, for a very small number of cancers.
...Research shows heavy cell phone use is associated with an increased cancer rate, of certain specific kinds of cancers.

What evidence based science is that? Sounds like a claim that should be easy to prove if there's any... you know, actual "evidence based science".

...Cops... ...groin cancer... ...radar guns... ...leaking radar energy was found to be the culprit.

I have to say that, based on what you said, this really smells of urban legend. "Leaking radar energy"? I could understand if the radar switch could be activated by how it sits in a lap, but even that's a stretch. And how does "radar energy" leak? And i don't know a lot about traffic radar, but isn't that still a mighty low frequency for ionization?

[robinson]

I'm limited in time spent on teh Internets right now. If you haven't read the reports, studies and articles about cell phones, or claim not to know about them, then I figure you must be ignoring the matter, so what good will it do to point you to what you don't want to know?

But maybe a lurker will benefit.



A top expert on Monday berated the Israeli public for not internalizing warnings about the possible dangers of cellphone use.

A top expert on Monday berated the Israeli public for not internalizing warnings about the possible dangers of cellphone use.

Prof. Elihu Richter, a senior expert in electromagnetic radiation and retired head of the occupational and environmental medicine unit of the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, was speaking a day after the Health Ministry posted guidelines on cellphone use on its Web site.

Richter, who does not use a cellphone, has been cautioning against the excessive usage of the devices for years. When asked to comment eight years ago on a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association claiming no connection between the use of cellular phones and brain cancer, Richter told The Jerusalem Post that the study's follow-up period of four years was too short and did not take into account the thinner skulls of children. He went on to add that had a similar protocol been applied to testing the effects of cigarette smoking, such a study would have erroneously yielded no correlation with cancer.

On Monday, Richter cited a public statement recently issued by the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, based on studies with a latency period of 10 years or greater, as evidence of the Health Ministry's obligation to launch an official warning.

Those who used a cell phone heavily on the side of the head where the tumor developed were found to have an increased risk of about 50% for developing a tumor of the main salivary gland (parotid), compared to those who did not use cell phones.

The fact that the study was done on an Israeli population is significant. Says Sadetzki, “Unlike people in other countries, Israelis were quick to adopt cell phone technology and have continued to be exceptionally heavy users. Therefore, the amount of exposure to radiofrequency radiation found in this study has been higher than in previous cell phone studies.

“This unique population has given us an indication that cell phone use is associated with cancer,” adds Sadetzki, whose study investigated nearly 500 people who had been diagnosed with benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland.

Neurosurgeon: Mobile phones 'worse than smoking'
By Natasha Lomas, Special to ZDNet Asia
Wednesday, April 02, 2008 07:57 AM

Mobile phones could represent a public-health time bomb akin to asbestos or smoking, according to a study by neurosurgeon Dr Vini G Khurana.

It suggests there is growing evidence of a link between excessive long-term use of mobiles and certain types of brain tumors--reigniting a long-running debate about the safety of the technology.

During a 14-month-long study Khurana reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile-phone use in recent medical and scientific literature--in addition to press and Internet coverage--and concludes "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence... for a link between mobile-phone usage and certain brain tumors".

The risk may be as great as a twofold to fourfold increase of developing a tumor on the same side of the head as the "preferred side" for mobile-phone use, the report warns.

It states: "There is a growing and statistically significant body of evidence reporting that brain tumors such as vestibular schwannoma (acoustic neuroma) and astrocytoma are associated with 'heavy' and 'prolonged' mobile-phone use, particularly on the same side as the 'preferred ear' for telephony.

Israeli Study Finds Heavy Cell Phone Use Linked to Cancer

by Ezra HaLevi

(IsraelNN.com) It’s official: Prolonged use of cellular phones is linked to cancer, according to a Tel Aviv University study.

People who use cell phones for lengthy periods of time every day are 50 percent more likely to develop benign or malignant tumors in their parotid gland, the main saliva producing gland, between the jaw and ear, according to the study, reported by Israel21c.org.

Brain Surgeon demonstrates clear brain tumour risk

Dr. Vini G. Khurana, a Staff Specialist Neurosurgeon for The Canberra
Hospital, has written a paper looking at recent epidemiological and
laboratory research on mobile phones and likelihood of an increase in
brain tumour risk, and finds the evidence to be fairly overwhelming.

Click here for the full news story
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20080328_khurana_brain_tumours.asp

Cellular Phone Use and Risk of Benign and Malignant Parotid Gland Tumors—A Nationwide Case-Control Study
Siegal Sadetzki1,2, Angela Chetrit1, Avital Jarus-Hakak1, Elisabeth Cardis3, Yonit Deutch1, Shay Duvdevani4, Ahuva Zultan1, Ilya Novikov5, Laurence Freedman5 and Michael Wolf2,4

1 Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Unit, Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
2 Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel
3 Radiation Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Lyon, France
4 Department of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel
5 Biostatistics Unit, Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer, Israel

Correspondence to Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, Cancer and Radiation Epidemiology Unit, Gertner Institute, Chaim Sheba Medical Center, Tel Hashomer 52621, Israel (e-mail: siegals@gertner.health.gov.il).

Received for publication March 1, 2007. Accepted for publication October 8, 2007.

The objective of this nationwide study was to assess the association between cellular phone use and development of parotid gland tumors (PGTs). The methods were based on the international INTERPHONE study that aimed to evaluate possible adverse effects of cellular phone use. The study included 402 benign and 58 malignant incident cases of PGTs diagnosed in Israel at age 18 years or more, in 2001–2003, and 1,266 population individually matched controls. For the entire group, no increased risk of PGTs was observed for ever having been a regular cellular phone user (odds ratio = 0.87; p = 0.3) or for any other measure of exposure investigated. However, analysis restricted to regular users or to conditions that may yield higher levels of exposure (e.g., heavy use in rural areas) showed consistently elevated risks. For ipsilateral use, the odds ratios in the highest category of cumulative number of calls and call time without use of hands-free devices were 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 1.11, 2.24) and 1.49 (95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.13), respectively. The risk for contralateral use was not significantly different from 1. A positive dose-response trend was found for these measurements. Based on the largest number of benign PGT patients reported to date, our results suggest an association between cellular phone use and PGTs.

May 27, 2008: LARRY KING: "Doctor Khurana, you say that the danger of cell phones could have far broader health ramifications than asbestos and smoking. What do you base it on?" VINI KHURANA: "I base it on the fact, Larry, that at this point in time, there's just over three billion users of cell phones worldwide. So that's half of our world population, or almost half. We've reached saturation points. For example, in Australia, there are 22 million cell phones and 21 million people. And the concern is not just brain tumors, but other health effects associated or reported to be associated with cell phones, including behavioral disturbances, salivary gland tumors, male infertility and microwave sickness syndrome. So we're not just talking about tumors, and I was not just implying brain tumors, but there are other health effects. And with so many users and users starting at the age of three and up now, we should be concerned. And I stand by those comments." [Transcript courtesy CNN]

Now get busy finding a way to dismiss, ignore, debunk and reject all the accomplished Doctors and researchers who spent billions actually doing science and stuff. Because your opinion is far more important than a leading Doctor or Surgeons. What could they possibly know that you don't?

After all, you are an anonymous nobody with an opinion, and they are just stupid Doctors who did years of research and science. I should listen to you, not a Doctor. Doctors are dumb, and you are smart.

I don't know why I bother to read research, listen to experts or do my own experiments. I could just follow your opinion, and be smart.

Speaking of experiments, I just repeated one. That shows with out any doubt that cell phone radio energy effects living tissue. You could do the same experiment. Except you already know it can't happen, so why bother?

[robinson]

(double post)

Everybody knows cell phones are completely safe (except while drunk, or driving) so jam that thing up against your ear and talk for at least 12 hours a day. Especially if you are a child.

[robinson]

In case it is hard to see (I know, I know, I didn't format anything very well) some of the names are

Siegal Sadetzki
Angela Chetrit
Avital Jarus-Hakak
Elisabeth Cardis
Yonit Deutch
Shay Duvdevani
Ahuva Zultan
Ilya Novikov
Laurence Freedman
Michael Wol

And in case the previous commentary gets misconstrued,

"Heavy, long term use of cell phones, especially in remote areas, is linked to an increased risk of some kinds of cancer".

Which is not the same as "cell phones cause cancer". Limited use is NOT connected to increased cancer risk.

[technoextreme]

"Heavy, long term use of cell phones, especially in remote areas, is linked to an increased risk of some kinds of cancer".
Now I know for a fact it isn't the cellphone. Cellphones work the same way whether you are in Tibet or in New York City. In fact logic which apparently you haven't befriended yet would say that the opposite would be true. In a city you get bombarded with more microwave radiation than you would in talking on your cellphone all day long. Just double checked logic is not on your side because if there was any truth to this matter the link would be found with in the cities not in the middle of oskoshbegosh.

[robinson]

Like I said, why listen to Doctors and Evidence based science, let us listen to opinions on teh Internets. After all, an opinion from some nobody means far more than a bunch of Doctors and researchers, who actually did scientific stuff.

No no, don't bother to actually do any looking and reading, you already know the truth, so you don't need all that expensive testing and studies and other nonsense.

Stupid Doctors. Why can't they just listen to us? All that wasted time actually looking at facts and reality. How can anyone so dumb become the head of a billion dollar study?

Or a Hospital?

[Tubbythin]

Now get busy finding a way to dismiss, ignore, debunk and reject all the accomplished Doctors and researchers who spent billions actually doing science and stuff. Because your opinion is far more important than a leading Doctor or Surgeons. What could they possibly know that you don't?

Or we could just ask the World Health Organization: ('http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/')

Cancer: Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers. Several studies of animals exposed to RF fields similar to those emitted by mobile phones found no evidence that RF causes or promotes brain cancer. While one 1997 study found that RF fields increased the rate at which genetically engineered mice developed lymphoma, the health implications of this result is unclear. Several studies are underway to confirm this finding and determine any relevance of these results to cancer in human beings. Three recent epidemiological studies found no convincing evidence of increase in risk of cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of experiments, I just repeated one. That shows with out any doubt that cell phone radio energy effects living tissue. You could do the same experiment. Except you already know it can't happen, so why bother?
Would you like any more straw?


ETA: BTW, before you go quoting from powerwatch again, you might want to take a look here ('http://www.badscience.net/category/powerwatch-alasdair-philips/').

[Spunk-Monkey]

...If you haven't read the reports, studies and articles about cell phones, or claim not to know about them, then I figure you must be ignoring the matter, so what good will it do to point you to what you don't want to know?

Oh, i've read plenty of hysterical claims on the matter. Most of what i've seen makes nonsensical claims in the mechanism, are based on "unpublished data", etc. To the best of my knowledge, none of these claims have withstood serious, open peer-reviewed study. Nor have they even provided a plausible mechanism (other than magical thinking). What I was requesting was to quote your earlier statement, "evidence based science." Not, "who says so?"

Quoting news reports of "a leading expert" or the Larry King Show is mighty far removed from rigorous scientific inquiry. This is the JREF forum, not the Weekly World News. These quotes from Dr. Khurana are only evidence of his ability to work up a good media spin and grab a few headlines.

...Heavy, long term use of cell phones, especially in remote areas, is linked to an increased risk of some kinds of cancer... ...Limited use is NOT..."

Even you have to admit that's incredibly vague. What peer reviewed studies have demonstrated these claims? I would really like to see who has proven this, the size and method of the study, the degrees of proven risk, the proposed/proven mechanism, and just for starters, by what definitions should we take the terms: "heavy long term use", "remote areas", "linked", "risk", "some kinds of cancer", and "limited use".

Now get busy finding a way to dismiss, ignore, debunk and reject all the accomplished Doctors and researchers who spent billions actually doing science and stuff. Because your opinion is far more important than a leading Doctor or Surgeons. What could they possibly know that you don't?

After all, you are an anonymous nobody with an opinion, and they are just stupid Doctors who did years of research and science. I should listen to you, not a Doctor. Doctors are dumb, and you are smart.

You're damn right i will, thank you. Even those you list can make mistakes, misinterpret data, be misquoted, or get caught up in hysteria. Some will even twist data, accidentally or consciously, forcing it to confirm to their presumptions. Many bogus claims get attributed to both real and fictitious doctors and can still make it to the mainstream media without confirmation.

This isn't about who's "smarter"; claims and quotes can be refuted, but solid evidence can stand up to scrutiny-- it has to. If a quote is attributed to a top neurosurgeon/physicist/etc. but doesn't conform with my understanding, i will question it. Most anyone here would, and i'd like to hope you would as well.

When i question something that i don't understand or seems implausible, what do i have to lose? If i find that i'm mistaken, i invariably learn something in the process. So i love being proven wrong. That's kept me lurking here for years; plenty of "smarter-fellers" for me to learn from.

[robinson]

Thats the best you can do? C'mon man! I can debunk this stuff better than that.

The report states: "The 'incubation time' or 'latency' (ie, the time from commencement of regular mobile-phone usage to the diagnosis of a malignant solid brain tumor in a susceptible individual) may be in the order of 10 to 20 years. In the years 2008 to 2012, we will have reached the appropriate length of follow-up time to begin to definitively observe the impact of this global technology on brain-tumor incidence rates."

While there is still no proven link between cancer and exposure to electromagnetic radiation from mobile-phone use, Khurana said the growing body of evidence is cause for concern. Children's use of mobiles is particularly worrying, he claims, suggesting their use of mobiles should be restricted to emergency situations only.

Khurana also calls for government and industry to take immediate action to reduce consumers' exposure to mobile-related electromagnetic radiation and to ensure they are aware of the potential dangers.
http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/communications/0,39044192,62039682,00.htm

Hand waving, hysteria, patent nonsense. Besides, this Khurana must be a woo.

Although Khurana urges the telecommunications industry to develop and promote radiofrequency-shielding devices for mobile phones, the telecoms themselves aren’t convinced. Speaking to Zdnet UK, Dr. Jack Rowley, director of research for the GSM Association (GSMA), said that Khurana failed to include several studies that found no connection to cancer and cell phone use.

And it’s not just the telecoms who are raising their eyebrows.

“Despite his distinction in neurosurgery and clinical experience in operating on brain cancer, the author does not provide a balanced summary of the evidence on this issue,” says Michael J. Thun, MD, vice president of epidemiology and surveillance research at the American Cancer Society. “His goal is laudable; he wants to point out that, in his view, there is considerable evidence linking cell phones to brain cancer, and there are ways that we can and should take to reduce exposure. However, in the process he substantially overstates the strength of the evidence and the magnitude of the likely problem.”

If you’re one to bury your head in the sand, you can at least take comfort that your cell phone use probably isn’t as catastrophic as you think. Meaning it’s not definitely killing you. As quickly. Or something. Enjoy CTIA, folks.
http://blog.laptopmag.com/study-cell-phones-worse-for-you-than-smoking

See? Cell phone companies say there is no danger, so why should we listen to some smarty pants Neurosurgeon? Just because he had to go to all that school stuff and operates on peoples brains and everything, how do we know he isn't just dumb?

And the concern is not just brain tumors, but other health effects associated or reported to be associated with cell phones, including behavioral disturbances, salivary gland tumors, male infertility and microwave sickness syndrome. So we're not just talking about tumors, and I was not just implying brain tumors, but there are other health effects. And with so many users and users starting at the age of three and up now, we should be concerned. And I stand by those comments."
http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobilephone.html

Ha! Health effects. Scare mongering. Bad science.

A top expert on Monday berated the Israeli public for not internalizing warnings about the possible dangers of cellphone use.

Prof. Elihu Richter, a senior expert in electromagnetic radiation and retired head of the occupational and environmental medicine unit of the Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine, was speaking a day after the Health Ministry posted guidelines on cellphone use on its Web site.

Richter, who does not use a cellphone, has been cautioning against the excessive usage of the devices for years. When asked to comment eight years ago on a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association claiming no connection between the use of cellular phones and brain cancer, Richter told The Jerusalem Post that the study's follow-up period of four years was too short and did not take into account the thinner skulls of children. He went on to add that had a similar protocol been applied to testing the effects of cigarette smoking, such a study would have erroneously yielded no correlation with cancer.

On Monday, Richter cited a public statement recently issued by the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, based on studies with a latency period of 10 years or greater, as evidence of the Health Ministry's obligation to launch an official warning.
http://www.mast-victims.org/index.php?content=news&action=view&type=newsitem&id=3348

Another "expert". Experts shemxperts. Just another woo trying to scare us into giving up our precious cell phones. And the smoking comparison isn't relevant.

RESULTS: Regular cell phone use was not associated with an increased risk of neuroma (OR=0,92; 95% confidence interval=[0.53-1.59]), meningioma (OR=0,74; 95% confidence interval=[0.43-1.28]) or glioma (OR=1.15; 95% confidence interval=[0.65-2.05]). Although these results are not statistically significant, a general tendency was observed for an increased risk of glioma among the heaviest users: long-term users, heavy users, users with the largest numbers of telephones. CONCLUSION: No significant increased risk for glioma, meningioma or neuroma was observed among cell phone users participating in Interphone. The statistical power of the study is limited, however. Our results, suggesting the possibility of an increased risk among the heaviest users, therefore need to be verified in the international INTERPHONE analyses.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17851009

Suggests. See? Suggests. Nothing conclusive. More woo nonsense.

Heavy mobile phone use may be linked to an increased risk of cancer of the salivary gland, a study suggests.

Researchers looked at 500 Israelis who had developed the condition and compared their mobile phone usage with 1,300 healthy controls.

Those who had used the phone against one side of the head for several hours a day were 50% more likely to have developed a salivary gland tumour.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7250372.stm

The BBC? Ha! A hotbed of woo propoganda. And besides, the Joos are involved. Another conspiracy to take away our phomes.

Dr. Sadetzki, a physician, epidemiologist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University, published the results of a study recently in the American Journal of Epidemiology, in which she and her colleagues found that heavy cell phone users were subject to a higher risk of benign and malignant tumors of the salivary gland.
www.physorg.com/news122221816.html

Another Joo. WooJoo nonsense. "a physician, epidemiologist and lecturer at Tel Aviv University", so what? Anonymous people posting on a message board are far more important sources than some Joo Doctor. Sure you got three, four, OK make two dozen Doctors and researchers saying the same thing, but it is a conspiracy man. Cause we know cell phones can't do nothing.

These people have all lost their minds.

Now go talk for another 5 hours on your phone, and quit bothering me with this woo nonsense.

Oh, and yeah, whatever you do, don't actually do an experiment that would show that your body absorbs cell phone radiation. It might cause cognitive dissonance.

Because you already know it can't be true.

Damn. I hate having to carry both sides of a conversation. Where are all the robinson hating skeptics these days?

[Tubbythin]

Run out of straw yet Robinson?

[Brian-M]

Oh, and yeah, whatever you do, don't actually do an experiment that would show that your body absorbs cell phone radiation. It might cause cognitive dissonance.

Of course our bodies absorb cell phone radiation. Cell phones produce microwave radiation, water absorbs microwave radiation (turning it into heat) and our bodies contain large amount of water.

There's plenty of studies performed by competent doctors and researchers that produce bad results. That's always been the case and always will be the case. Until a respected authority, like the World Health Organisation agrees that cell-phones increase the risk of cancer, or someone uncovers a plausible mechanism by which microwave radiation can cause mutations in our cells, I'm not going to worry.

My main objection to mobile phones is not that that they might cause cancer, just that they're annoying.

[Tubbythin]

There's plenty of studies performed by competent doctors and researchers that produce bad results.

Plus enough studies so that some good studies may evidence a link by sheer chance. Eg, a study which shows a link is 95% probable may be alarming on its own. But if it was 1 of 20 such studies and the other 19 all showed no evidence of any correlation then chances are there is nothing to worry about. Unfortunately "nothing to worry about" doesn't sell newspapers.

[robinson]

Gosh darn. A real rootin tootin anonymous expert on teh Internets that knows more than leading researchers and Neurosurgeons! And to think of all the time and money them scientist waste on evidence based medical studies.

They could have just asked you!

[Tubbythin]

Gosh darn. A real rootin tootin anonymous expert on teh Internets that knows more than leading researchers and Neurosurgeons! And to think of all the time and money them scientist waste on evidence based medical studies.

They could have just asked you!

Shall I repeat what the World Health Organisation say?:


Cancer: Current scientific evidence indicates that exposure to RF fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones and their base stations, is unlikely to induce or promote cancers. Several studies of animals exposed to RF fields similar to those emitted by mobile phones found no evidence that RF causes or promotes brain cancer. While one 1997 study found that RF fields increased the rate at which genetically engineered mice developed lymphoma, the health implications of this result is unclear. Several studies are underway to confirm this finding and determine any relevance of these results to cancer in human beings. Three recent epidemiological studies found no convincing evidence of increase in risk of cancer or any other disease with use of mobile phones.

Suprisingly, I trust them more than a few experts you've selectively plucked from the internet thanks.