Cellphones and Cancer - AGAIN!

[BillyJoe]

I don't know how much interest there still is in this topic, but...


This report on cellphones (called Mobile Phones in Australia) and cancer appeared on Lateline on the ABC in Australia on Thursday 2nd April:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2533725.htm

The page contains a link to the video recording of the episode.



The program in part discusses the contents of a study which was completed in 2006 but which has not yet been officially released "because the scientists disagree about the conclusions". Nevertheless many seem to have an opinion on what is does say.

The study is called "Interphone"

Does anyone know why the Interphone study has not been officially released or, if it has, if it does indeed support the cancer link?



Those supporting a link are as follows:
- Bruce Armstrong, epidemiologist
- Vini Khurana, neurosurgeon
- Charles Teo, neurosurgeon
- Devra Davis, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute
- Louis Slesin, editor of "Microwave News"
- Lennaet Hardell, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
- Elisabeth Cardis

Unless they've been misrepresented, does anyone know the reasons why these presumably emminient individuals support the cancer link?



At one point the head of the Australian Centre for RF Bioeffects Research, Rodney Croft talks about an, as yet, unpublished paper that shows that what side of the head people say they hold their cellphones on bears no relation to what side of the head they actually hold their cellphones. Does anyone know of any such studies and what they actually show?

BillyJoe

[Yuri Nalyssus]

... people say they hold their cellphones on bears...
Wow - that's extreme vivisection!

Yuri

[Tubbythin]

DR CHARLES TEO, NEUROSURGEON: In my view, yes, but not scientifically, no. I think the scariest thing is that we know that when you give radiation for cancer to the brain, you can develop brain cancer from the radiation. So we know that, we know that radiation causes cancer. But it takes about 10 years for it to develop.


:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
I can't believe a neurosurgeon does not know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation! That is absolutely staggering.

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Wow - that's extreme vivisection!
Ahem :o. Now the more serious reply. Have a look at these links:

There’s an article in the BMJ journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine here - http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/64/9/626 (http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/64/9/626)

The Mobile Telecommunications and Health research site is here: http://www.mthr.org.uk/index.htm (http://www.mthr.org.uk/index.htm)

And they have a rather lengthy pdf report here, pages 9 & 10 refer to the the Interphone studies - http://www.mthr.org.uk/documents/MTHR_report_2007.pdf (http://www.mthr.org.uk/documents/MTHR_report_2007.pdf)

Hope that helps. The comment about the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation is pertinent of course, but there are some effects (mainly simple warming) from non-ionising radiations that people are concerned about although from basic principles it’s hard to see how these more limited effects could be carcinogenic.

Yuri

[Tubbythin]

Hope that helps. The comment about the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation is pertinent of course, but there are some effects (mainly simple warming) from non-ionising radiations that people are concerned about although from basic principles it’s hard to see how these more limited effects could be carcinogenic.

Yuri

I'm not saying there isn't. But treating the two as if they are the same thing which could have the same effects either takes unbelieveable ignorance or a desire to deliberately misrepresent the science in question to cause panic and alarm. Which is worse?

[BillyJoe]

:jaw-dropp:jaw-dropp
I can't believe a neurosurgeon does not know the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation! That is absolutely staggering.
But what about this bit:

In my view, yes, but not scientifically, no.
What could he possibly mean by that?
The scientific view is no but personally he feels the answer is yes?? The objective scientific evidence says no but his personal subjective feeling is that the answer is yes???
What the hell?

[Tubbythin]

But what about this bit:


What could he possibly mean by that?
The scientific view is no but personally he feels the answer is yes?? The objective scientific evidence says no but his personal subjective feeling is that the answer is yes???
What the hell?

"I think the "scientific view" is wrong and I'm right but I have no evidence for it." ?

[Ivor the Engineer]

But... But... He's a doctor! He can't be full of **** wrong!

[BillyJoe]

Ivor, you have a cute little dog but you really need to train it a little :D

[ectoplasm]

The Economist had an article on the Interphone study last year.

The Interphone researchers are split into three camps. One believes any increased incidence of tumours shown in the study is purely the result of the biases. Another thinks it really has found increased risks of certain tumours and wants to call for precautionary measures. A third group is just keeping quiet. One person who knows many of the scientists, but prefers not to be named, describes the relations between members of the three groups as “strained”—harsh language in the world of scientific research.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12295222

[BillyJoe]

Thanks for the link to that interesting article, ectoplasm.

Some interesting comments on the article as well:

The main objection to a possible relationship between usage of a handheld mobile phone and cancer is the lack of mechanism.
The electromagnetic waves' frequency is far too low to affect the chemical bonds in the DNA molecule.
The only possible effect is bulk heating. Now, our body's basal metabolic rate is about 70W, of which 20% is spent in the brain, that is, 14W. On the other hand, cell phones emit 1W or less, and in all directions, so that the fraction that goes through the head is, say, one third of that, and the fraction of this fraction that is absorbed is much smaller, so it is difficult to imagine that the phone would significatively heat the tissues.

I have a suspicion far more cell-phone users die in car accidents than from cancer. That would be the real health issue.

the real question is not does mobile use cause cancer etc. It is what is the risk / benefit ratio. Based on all the scientific information available I'd say quite good really.

We will never be able to say for sure that there are no risks from using mobile phones, but we can say that these risks look very small compared with exposure to natural electromagnetic radiation of higher photon energy, such as sunlight.

RF are photons whose energy level is proportional to frequency. We have good models of how photons of different energy levels interact with atoms (that includes those in the DNA molecule) and how probable it is that one of those photons should break the covalent bonds and produce a DNA mutation in healthy cells. That's the only way in which RF can create cancer. How about working along these lines and leaving aside epidemiology this time (as though we knew nothing about the laws of nature)?

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Thanks for the link to that interesting article, ectoplasm.

Some interesting comments on the article as well:
Robert Park in his book "voodoo science" compared the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation to someone throwing stones into the Atlantic ocean. In the same way that non-ionizing radiation doesn't have the energy to break atomic bonds in the DNA molecule the stones don't have enough energy to reach the other side of the ocean. What's more no matter how many stones you throw they will never, ever reach the other side - just can't happen.

But people get hung up on the word "radiation"; they can't think beyond it. If you told them that light was also "radiation" they'd be running around the house switching all the bulbs off for fear of getting cancer. But I bet they'd still go out on a warm Summer's day to get a nice tan :cool:

Yuri

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

But people get hung up on the word "radiation"; they can't think beyond it. If you told them that light was also "radiation" they'd be running around the house switching all the bulbs off for fear of getting cancer. But I bet they'd still go out on a warm Summer's day to get a nice tan :cool:

Yuri

Only if they're wearing tin-foil hats to protect them from the invisible death rays emitted by mobile phone base stations.

[technoextreme]

But people get hung up on the word "radiation"; they can't think beyond it. If you told them that light was also "radiation" they'd be running around the house switching all the bulbs off for fear of getting cancer. But I bet they'd still go out on a warm Summer's day to get a nice tan :cool:

Yuri
Heh... I ran into the backwards variation of that with Brookhaven National Laboratory's Synchrotron. My family didn't realize it was also called the light source. Now my mother keeps on joking about how it is a giant light bulb.

We will never be able to say for sure that there are no risks from using mobile phones, but we can say that these risks look very small compared with exposure to natural electromagnetic radiation of higher photon energy, such as sunlight.
Sunlight is pretty much harmless except for the parts of the UV spectrum. In fact sunlight is pretty much essential to us living normal healthy lives.
EDIT:
Unless you stare directly into the sun light a freaking moron.

[MattusMaximus]

Good grief, I can't stand this sort of silliness. Ironically, I made a detailed blog post about this very topic the same day this article came out...

http://skepticalteacher.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/electromagnetic-fields-cancer-myths/

There I go into the physics of EM-radiation, the difference between ionizing & non-ionizing radiation, and why there is no known mechanism by which low-frequency EMFs can cause cancer. Some of the woo comments are also pretty interesting.

[BillyJoe]

MattusMaximus,

Most seem to accept the idea that the EMR probably does not cause cancer directly.
Most seem to be hedging their bets on indirect effects of EMR such as heat.
Failing that they wonder whether there may be yet other unidentified mechanisms.

And, of course there continue to be studies that seem to show an effect - the most prominent of these is a Swedish study that showed a 5 fold increase in cancer in children!

Goddamn, this is never going to go away!

[Yuri Nalyssus]

MattusMaximus,

Most seem to accept the idea that the EMR probably does not cause cancer directly.
Most seem to be hedging their bets on indirect effects of EMR such as heat.
Failing that they wonder whether there may be yet other unidentified mechanisms.

And, of course there continue to be studies that seem to show an effect - the most prominent of these is a Swedish study that showed a 5 fold increase in cancer in children!

Goddamn, this is never going to go away!
Do you have a reference for this study?

Yuri

[Yuri Nalyssus]

Some of the woo comments are also pretty interesting.
"Are you aware that humans transmitting information using some of these frequency can induce many measurable electrical changes and visible physical changes in another human with no physical contact."
Hmmm...

Yuri

[BillyJoe]

Do you have a reference for this study?
I've been trying to find a link to it, but no articles that discus seem to provide a link. I'll try again tonight if I get a chance

[Cuddles]

The main objection to a possible relationship between usage of a handheld mobile phone and cancer is the lack of mechanism.

Not quite. The main objection to a possible relationship between usage of a handheld mobile phone and cancer is the lack of evidence. It would be perfectly possible to show a link without having any idea of mechanism. There have been numerous discoveries throughout the ages that did just that. If a clear link between mobile phones and cancer could be shown, no-one would dismiss it just because we don't know how it works. The problem is simply that we don't see a link.

This is the same as the situation with many other things. Homeopathy, for example. It's not dismissed because we don't know how it works, it's dismissed because it doesn't work. The lack of mechanism only comes when you consider whether it is worth investigating something. If you have a theoretical mechanism by which something could occur, it might be worth looking at even if you don't have evidence it does occur. However, if you don't have evidence it happens or a potential mechanism, there's really no reason to take it seriously at all.

Heh... I ran into the backwards variation of that with Brookhaven National Laboratory's Synchrotron. My family didn't realize it was also called the light source.

They didn't realise the National Synchrotron Light Source was called a light source?

[MattusMaximus]

Do you have a reference for this study?

Yuri

Ditto. BillyJoe?

ETA: Plus a second question - has that Swedish study been replicated?

[MattusMaximus]

Most seem to accept the idea that the EMR probably does not cause cancer directly.
Most seem to be hedging their bets on indirect effects of EMR such as heat.
Failing that they wonder whether there may be yet other unidentified mechanisms.


You mean like possibly not having exposure to low-frequency EMFs could give you cancer? I mean, hey folks, we just don't know; that could be true!!! :jaw-dropp

Ladies and gentlemen, I refer you to the Paralyzing Precautionary Principle (http://skepdic.com/skeptimedia/skeptimedia20.html) :rolleyes:

[casebro]

Was that study Jewish children in England, vs Jewish children in Israel? But that was overhead power lines, I think? And allergies? Or am I conflating...or is it mental flatulence? I get sooo confused.... must be the EMF that my brain puts out?

[BillyJoe]

Not quite. The main objection to a possible relationship between usage of a handheld mobile phone and cancer is the lack of evidence. It would be perfectly possible to show a link without having any idea of mechanism. There have been numerous discoveries throughout the ages that did just that. If a clear link between mobile phones and cancer could be shown, no-one would dismiss it just because we don't know how it works. The problem is simply that we don't see a link.
I know what you are saying.
But the problem is that some do see a link, or a possible link, or a potential link and some of those who do see a link are quite prominent individuals in the relevant fields of epidemiology and neurosurgery. Some of them are now warning everyone to take precautions.

The lack of mechanism only comes when you consider whether it is worth investigating something.This is really what I meant.
But, despite implausibility, the link has been investigated anyway and, after a few hundred million dollars, they're continuing to investigate it.

If you have a theoretical mechanism by which something could occur, it might be worth looking at even if you don't have evidence it does occur. However, if you don't have evidence it happens or a potential mechanism, there's really no reason to take it seriously at all.This is how it should happen, but it doesn't.
There are always some investigations showing a possible link. And so it grinds on endlessly never ever seeming to reach a conclusion. I'm sure we'll still be having this converstion in ten years time.

BJ

[BillyJoe]

I did find a link to that study but it costs $30 to access it.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

People are still convinced that power lines cause cancer. I've tried telling people otherwise, but they won't listen. No matter what evidence you cite, they heard it on the news in 1988, so it's true. Just like when Tommy Hilfiger went on Oprah and told the world he's a white supremecist. "That never happened." "Yes! Yes! It totally happened! I remember watching the show! In fact, I was in the audience! And Oprah punched him! I remember!"

[BillyJoe]

Here are a few articles that comment on the Swedish study:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mobile-phone-use-raises-childrens-risk-of-brain-cancer-fivefold-937005.html

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/health&id=6409854

http://groups.myspace.com/toriloveclub

A recent Swedish research study, reported this month [sept 2008] at an international conference, stated that children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones.

Children are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because—since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner—the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains, the study says.

Professor Hardell told the recent conference that “people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20 had more than five-fold increase in glioma,”

Those who started using mobiles young, he added, were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, benign but often disabling tumors of the auditory nerve, which usually cause deafness, Hardell says. By contrast, people who were in their twenties before using handsets were only 50 per cent more likely to contract gliomas and just twice as likely to get acoustic neuromas.


A cautionary note here:

http://medgadget.com/archives/2006/03/cell_phones_and.html

And it's worth noting: when it comes to cancer and radiation, we have never seen a Swedish study that didn't find a link.

I wonder if Prof Lennart Hardell is the lowest common denominator?

[BillyJoe]

From my first post:


Those supporting a link are as follows:
- Bruce Armstrong, epidemiologist
- Vini Khurana, neurosurgeon
- Charles Teo, neurosurgeon
- Devra Davis, University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute
- Louis Slesin, editor of "Microwave News"
- Lennaet Hardell, University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
- Elisabeth Cardis



Here is a link to a paper authored by the three individuals highlighted above:

http://www.brain-surgery.net.au/SurgNeurol_RV.pdf

The results indicate that using a cell phone for ≥10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma and acoustic neuroma but not for meningioma.


This paper contains identifies to one of those "unidentified" mechanisms:

It should be noted that the induction of stable DNA
alterations does not require a DNA-damaging or genotoxic
agent.

Agents that interfere with epigenetic activities, for
example, the processing of these damages, cell cycle control,
or apoptosis of the deviating cell, will increase the likelihood
of malignant transformation. In this context, expression
of genes related to cell death or apoptotic pathways were
recently found to be dysregulated in primary cultured
neurons and astrocytes following 2-hour exposure to a
working GSM cell phone rated at a frequency of 1900 Mhz.

Finally, the precise mechanism by which GSM cell
phone (nonionizing) EMR can cause or promote neoplasia
remains unidentified; however, it has been proposed that the
mechanism is unlikely to be related to local heating...but rather a
“nonthermal” interaction between incoming microwaves
and exquisitely sensitive oscillatory electrical processes found in
living tissues.

This interaction that has been referred to as
“oscillatory similitude” is akin to the reception of a clock radio being
susceptible to interference from a nearby cell phone. It is
possible that the phenomenon of oscillatory similitude may
lead to genetic or epigenetic damage through increased local
production of reactive oxygen species or “free radicals”

BJ

[BillyJoe]

Here is a typical media piece regarding cellphones and cancer which features the above study and two of the authors
- Vini Khurana, neurosurgeon
- Charles Teo, neurosurgeon

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=797215

That Charles Teo sounds very scientific indeed. :rolleyes:
And there is the token sceptic who puts in a 15 second appearance 3/4 of the way through.