cellphones vs cancer risk - WHO press release

[Borek]

WHO press release "IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS" (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf)

The evidence was reviewed critically, and overall evaluated as being limited among users of wireless telephones for glioma and acoustic neuroma, and inadequate to draw conclusions for other types of cancers. The evidence from the occupational and environmental exposures mentioned above was similarly judged inadequate.

I understand they are being cautious, but for me this is coming way too close to throwing kid with a bath water.

[Ivan Seeking]

"the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

This doesn't seem like big problem. It all boils down to nothing more than using a headset instead of holding the phone directly against one's ear.

By the same token, there was a time when X-rays were used to fit shoes.

[russ_watters]

Well the kid could grow up to be the next Hitler. Better safe than sorry.

This is very bad: crackpots live for this sort of thing. They got a ton of mileage from some government agency just looking at cold fusion. This is the new cancer-causing microwaves and power lines hoax/hysteria.

[Ivan Seeking]

Well the kid could grow up to be the next Hitler. Better safe than sorry.

This is very bad: crackpots live for this sort of thing. They got a ton of mileage from some government agency just looking at cold fusion. This is the new cancer-causing microwaves and power lines hoax/hysteria.

In fact this claim has been disputed and debated for years but the evidence seems to be growing that there is a potential problem - that according to the WHO.

What I find far more ridiculous is a reckless disregard for human health based on a fear of crackpots.

[qntty]

Maybe the hysteria over cell phones and brain cancer wasn't as ridiculous as it seemed. The IARC (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf) has done a review of the literature and says that "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields [are] possibly carcinogenic to humans" (the other 3 possible ratings being "probably not carcinogenic", "probably carcinogenic" and "carcinogenic"). As far as I know, no one has actually proposed a plausible mechanism, but I suppose that the press release is less than reassuring.

[Vagn]

Maybe the hysteria over cell phones and brain cancer wasn't as ridiculous as it seemed. The IARC (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf) has done a review of the literature and says that "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields [are] possibly carcinogenic to humans" (the other 3 possible ratings being "probably not carcinogenic", "probably carcinogenic" and "carcinogenic"). As far as I know, no one has actually proposed a plausible mechanism, but I suppose that the press release is less than reassuring.

It's being discussed in the Biology forum. Cell phone radiation has been placed in the same group of possible carcinogens is carpentry and joinery, tea and pickled vegetables.

[berkeman]

The discussion in the Biology forum is here:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=292048&page=2

The current report is being discussed starting on page 2 of that thread.

[russ_watters]

In fact this claim has been disputed and debated for years but the evidence seems to be growing that there is a potential problem - that according to the WHO. What you - and many others - are missing is the concept of signal to noise ratio. The more research done, the more signal is generated, but you ignore the fact that more noise is generated as well and the overall s/n ratio remains unchanged. This is exactly the same as the problem with "UFO research".

The WHO did not do any of their own studies, they just looked at studies that already existed. No, nothing has changed form last week. No new evidence was presented - much less "growing evidence" What I find far more ridiculous is a reckless disregard for human health based on a fear of crackpots. In order to care (or not care) about a health risk, there first has to be a health risk. The WHO didn't even say that there was! Don't try to paint me as uncaring when I don't recognize a non-existent risk. Heck: I'm a cell phone user too.

Personal attacks are unwarrented here.

A good op-ed: Why this new fear of a device we're been using for decades? A new study, perhaps? New information that just made its way to the unsuspecting masses? Nope. Earlier this week, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, convened 31 experts in France who put their heads together and concluded that cellphones are "possible carcinogens" in the same way that exhaust from cars might be cancer-provoking....

So how frightened should we be with this new lurking carcinogen with the pleasant and seemingly innocuous (but ultimately sinister!) ring tones? Answer: We should not be frightened at all....

Cellphones require further study because they do emit low-level radiation (in between radio waves and microwaves), but these waves have never been shown to cause or be associated with an increased incidence of cancer.

Consider the source. Nothing has changed overnight, and the WHO is famous for generating hype and hysteria. Remember, this is the same WHO that recklessly predicted in 2005 that H5N1 bird flu could kill 90 million people, when it was found almost entirely in birds. I mean, I suppose it's true that it could kill 90 million people. Though I suppose it's also true that an asteroid could eliminate this planet next Wednesday, just after lunch.

This is the same WHO that inflamed and accelerated the swine flu scare in 2009, quickly elevating it to pandemic status and authorizing the production of millions of doses of vaccine that ultimately had to be discarded....

More than two dozen studies done in Europe, the United States and New Zealand have not established a definitive link between cellphones and brain cancer. Of course the results are limited because they rely on survey data, which is the weakest kind of science. One study showed a possible association between heavy cellphone use and cancer, but the study was severely limited because it questioned people who already had brain cancer and asked them to try to recall how frequently they had used their cellphones. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-03-Ignore-WHO-fearmongering-over-cellphones_n.htm

[Lambert]

This study using a PET scanner shows "The PET scan showed about a 7 percent increase in glucose metabolism in brain regions nearest to the cell phone antenna."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/02/study-cell-phone-radiation-increases-brain-activity-but-health-effects-unknown.html

[Evo]

This study using a PET scanner shows "The PET scan showed about a 7 percent increase in glucose metabolism in brain regions nearest to the cell phone antenna."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/02/study-cell-phone-radiation-increases-brain-activity-but-health-effects-unknown.htmlAnd according to the article that could be a good thing.

They found that the parts of the brain nearest the phone's antenna were about 7 percent more active when the phone was on and receiving a call then when it was off. That's roughly equivalent, Volkow said, to the amount of activity seen in the language areas of your brain while you're speaking.

But the researchers caution that their study does not prove anything about whether cell phones cause cancer or other health issues.

"Results of this study provide evidence that acute cell phone exposure affects brain metabolic activity. However, these results provide no information as to their relevance regarding potential carcinogenic effects (or lack of such effects) from chronic cell phone use," they wrote.

In fact, said Volkow, much more research needs to be done to figure out whether the brain activity changes she showed are harmful. And if they're not, she said, it's even possible that the type of radiation emitted by cell phones could be used therapeutically (like transcranial magnetic stimulation, used to treat depression.)

[Triple_D]

Every once in a while, I find something good about getting older. And this is one of those times. Based on the minimal number of calls I make, I guess it would take 20 years, or more, for me to suffer any adverse effects from cell phone use. And by then, I will likely be dead, or just too old to care, anyway. Therefore, I find little to worry about, when it comes to the "radiofrequency electromagnetic fields" associated with cell phones. :smile:

[fluidistic]

Now someone has to explain me as why EM waves with so low energy (cannot even damage DNA) can cause a cancer; even with high intensity. These waves might increase a very very bit your brain temperature -water heat capacity being high- but so can do lots of other things like doing sport, taking a shower, etc.
If there's no physical reason to explain the conclusion that cell phone possibly can cause cancer, I won't believe it. We're not dealing with "unknown" physics as far as I know.

[JaredJames]

I assume all the studies that show a rise in cases of the various cancers have allowed for advances in our ability to detect them and other such factors?

[Evo]

I assume all the studies that show a rise in cases of the various cancers have allowed for advances in our ability to detect them and other such factors?I don't beleive there have been any studies that found an actual link to cancer.

[KingNothing]

The truth is the issue is always going to get highly political, even among scientists and engineers, especially when cell phones are a multi-billion dollar industry.

I do know that IEEE has a maximum power rating for cell phone signals, that basically all commercial phones operate at that limit, and that the limit is for "use at 6 inches from the head", which no one does.

[Evo]

My daughter only uses hers for texting, so her thumbs are at risk?

[fluidistic]

My daughter only uses hers for texting, so her thumbs are at risk?
You'll get an answer within 10 years. The answer will be "possibly at risk" XD

[Mkorr]

Now someone has to explain me as why EM waves with so low energy (cannot even damage DNA) can cause a cancer; even with high intensity.

You are absolutely right that available background knowledge strongly favors a rejection of a causal link between cellphones and cancer.

However, you have a very simplistic view of cancer; the last 20 years or so of cancer research has shown that it is more to it than merely DNA damage; epigenetics, metabolic changes and many other mechanism that are not really elucidated yet that play crucial roles in carcinogenesis.

[alt]

What you - and many others - are missing is the concept of signal to noise ratio. The more research done, the more signal is generated, but you ignore the fact that more noise is generated as well and the overall s/n ratio remains unchanged. This is exactly the same as the problem with "UFO research".

The WHO did not do any of their own studies, they just looked at studies that already existed. No, nothing has changed form last week. No new evidence was presented - much less "growing evidence" In order to care (or not care) about a health risk, there first has to be a health risk. The WHO didn't even say that there was! Don't try to paint me as uncaring when I don't recognize a non-existent risk. Heck: I'm a cell phone user too.

Personal attacks are unwarrented here.

A good op-ed: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-03-Ignore-WHO-fearmongering-over-cellphones_n.htm

There was a day too, when smoking was apparently good for you, and no WHO studies said asbestos in building products was deadly.

Surely, with cell phones, it is better to err on the side of caution ?

Here in Aus we have the highest use of cell phones in the world - and many young people, particularly teen / early 20's girls are showing up with tumours in their heads just where the phone goes. There's one of our leading brain surgeons (Dr Teo if I recall correctly) who is quite alarmed at this and is constantly cautioning all about the possible, indeed likely risks.

I personally think it's a great problem, and that in future decades, problems will manifest that will be worse than tobacco, asbestos, etc.

On a related note, just to show how opinions and 'the science' can differ, and coincidentally, we just had the following story in our '60 Minutes'

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/8257129/the-toxic-truth

It's about the chemical BPA in plastic drinking vessels - particularly babies bottles. Canada has banned it, USA has banned it .. in fact, your President Obama made some direct comments in relation to it. But here in Aus, we continue to use it .. the science says it's harmless, apparently. So why has USA and Canada banned it then ? Erring on the side of caution I suppose, when peoples health, indeed lives are concerned.

[Jimmy Snyder]

WHO press release "IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS" (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf).
Regardless of what the risk may be, doesn't anyone recognize how empty this statement is?

[Chi Meson]

Regardless of what the risk may be, doesn't anyone recognize how empty this statement is?

The WHO has obviously been studying the comments beneath Youtube videos.

[Jimmy Snyder]

The WHO has obviously been studying the comments beneath Youtube videos.
That might be the truest statement anyone has ever made.

[russ_watters]

There was a day too, when smoking was apparently good for you, and no WHO studies said asbestos in building products was deadly.

Surely, with cell phones, it is better to err on the side of caution ? Taking action based on a nonexistent risk is not caution. It's fear of your own shadow.

It sounds like you're suggesting that since we don't know whether anything kills you we should assume everything can kill you. If you really wanted to take that approach, you'd stay balled-up in the fetal position under your basement stairs until you died of thirst!
Here in Aus we have the highest use of cell phones in the world - and many young people, particularly teen / early 20's girls are showing up with tumours in their heads just where the phone goes. There's one of our leading brain surgeons (Dr Teo if I recall correctly) who is quite alarmed at this and is constantly cautioning all about the possible, indeed likely risks. Are you sure he's not just selling hysteria for his own personal profit? It happens (a lot). Because there are no studies that show what you are suggesting. I personally think it's a great problem, and that in future decades, problems will manifest that will be worse than tobacco, asbestos, etc. I think it is unlikely. On a related note, just to show how opinions and 'the science' can differ, and coincidentally, we just had the following story in our '60 Minutes'

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/stories/8257129/the-toxic-truth

It's about the chemical BPA in plastic drinking vessels - particularly babies bottles. Canada has banned it, USA has banned it .. in fact, your President Obama made some direct comments in relation to it. But here in Aus, we continue to use it .. the science says it's harmless, apparently. So why has USA and Canada banned it then ? Erring on the side of caution I suppose, when peoples health, indeed lives are concerned. [emphasis added] Incorrect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A#Studies_on_humans

You're drawing a comparison that doesn't exist. And the examples you got from that 60 minutes link are nothing more than sensationalism. Cigarettes? AFAIK, no one except a marketteer ever suggested they were beneficial. Smokers who weren't in denial have surely known they were harmful forever and scientists started measuring their harm in the 19th century. And remember, our understanding of what causes cancer has changed a lot since the days the Radium Girls licked their watch-painting brushes.

Asbestos is an intersting case. IMO, it shouldn't have been banned, but was so badly mismanaged for a century, it was just easier to ban it than deal with it. We use a ton of toxic substances in our everyday lives - our electronics and light bulbs in particular are just filled with them. What matters is how we use them and if we come into contact with enough of them to matter. I have a highly toxic substance suspended over my head right now. Am I worried? Of course not.

Asbestos killed a huge number of shipyard workers from WWII. About 100,000 out of 4.3 million (from the wiki). 100,000 is a big number, and so asbestos was banned. But consider what they were doing. They were building ships. Can you think of a more claustrophobic job? Were those shipyard workers wearing ventilators? (probably not). Were the ships themselves well ventilated? (probably not). If you've ever worked in your attic, you know what it is like cutting and moving around insulation in a confined space. It's nasty and you wear a ventilator. There are a host of related asbestos workers in the same boat, so to speak.

So where would we be today with asbestos if it had been properly dealt with back then? What if they had made more of an effort to ventilate ships and had the workers wear PPE? Perhaps it still would have killed a few people and we'd have to scale back its use, but if it killed 10 or 100 shipworkers instead of 100,000, would we still use it to insulate houses, but not ships? How about for oven mitts and brake pads? Or would we just change the manufacturing to mitigate the risk of exposure? Say by jacketing the asbsestos? Then you could work with it and around it and not worry about being exposed to it: kinda like we do with our computers and light bulbs. OSHA was created in 1970. Would we have had the asbestos problem if it had been created in 1920?

The wiki on the history is a sad chronicle of ignoring the risks of asbestos for a long time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos#History_of_health_concerns_and_regulation

Now the pendulum has swung the other way: now instead of ignoring well-established risks, we have people suggesting we take action against nonexistent ones. While this won't kill anyone, it will disrupt our lives and from a scientific standpoint is no better.

[Borek]

Can be of interest:

Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness (http://www.ce.cmu.edu/~hsm/bca2005/lnotes/500-interventions.pdf) - pdf file.

This is from 1995, so quite old, but gives some material for thought. I wonder how the situation changed - and somehow I doubt it got better.

[russ_watters]

Interesting list. They have a bunch for asbestos on there, too.

[alt]

[QUOTE] Taking action based on a nonexistent risk is not caution.

Lol .. the definition of the word 'risk' itself, is the probability of something happening;

Wordweb ..
The probability of becoming infected given that exposure to an infectious agent has occurred

If we were to know with 100% probability that something would happen, there would be no risk. Your premise here, then, is that we should only show interest, get concerned, or take action to avert some danger or negative effect only if we knew of it happening with 100% certainty. This is quite a contortion of the concept and the language.

It's fear of your own shadow.

Fear ? Your somewhat aggressive and demeaning tone portrays fear - and a degree ad hominem too, even though for a more benign comment, you admonished another contributor in this thread thus ..

Personal attacks are unwarrented here.

It sounds like you're suggesting that since we don't know whether anything kills you we should assume everything can kill you.

Really ? Does it really sound like that ? Please show me, word for word, where it sounds like I said that - particularly 'we should assume everything can kill you'.

If you really wanted to take that approach, you'd stay balled-up in the fetal position under your basement stairs until you died of thirst!

No I wouldn't - that's just plain silly. Even without direct, scientific proof, my common sense would tell me that doing that would eventually be lethal - just as my common sense tells me that firing several hours of microwaves into my brain will eventually be lethal.

Are you sure he's not just selling hysteria for his own personal profit? It happens (a lot). Because there are no studies that show what you are suggesting.

Are you sure you're not quelling debate for your personal profit ? It happens (a lot).

But to answer your question, no, I'm not sure - just as I'm not sure you're not quelling debate for your personal profit. Now, I don't know much about you, so I can‘t say more there, but Dr Teo has been quite vocal about this issue in recent years. And he is one of this countries leading brain surgeons. I'm struggling to see what personal profit he would derive from preventing people from potential brain damage. Surely, if he wanted to profit from such a thing, and he suspected it to be real, he would shut up about it wouldn't he ? So as not to diminish his client base ? Look, check him out a little before you engage in such disparaging comments ..


http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/mobile-phone-cancer-report-a-wakeup-call-teo-20110601-1ffs6.html
One of Australia's leading brain surgeons says a new report into the potentially harmful effects of mobile phones should serve as a "wake-up call" to users and the telecommunications industry. Dr Charles Teo, founder of the Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery at Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, said he was "pleased" with the findings.
"There is an increasing body of evidence that there is an association between brain tumours and mobile phones," Dr Teo, also a former Australian of the Year finalist, said in a statement today.
"Today's report should serve as a 'wake up call' alerting both the public and the mobile phone industry to the link ."

http://www.survival.org.au/phone_cancer.php
Dr. Teo says: "If the question is do I believe that mobile phones can cause brain cancer? The answer is yes, I do." Teo also gives this warning: "I'm incredibly worried, concerned, depressed at the number of kids I'm seeing coming in with brain tumors. [B]Just in the last three or four weeks I've seen nearly half a dozen kids with tumors which really should have been benign and they've all been nasty, malignant brain tumors. We are doing something terribly wrong."

And look Russ .. you got a little carried away with the tobacco and asbestos thing. I didn't really want to debate them here - off topic. I mentioned them to show how something can be deemed safe today / yesterday and harmful today / tomorrow - even by those sacrosanct authorities.

The 60 Minutes article wasn't sensationalism IMO - and it was about the chemical BPA in drinking and food vessels - NOT about asbestos and tobacco, though you seemed to have missed this.

And the very reason why I mentioned THAT article, was to again, show how fluid the so called science. and scientific authorities are on this. You see, your (USA) authorities have banned it, as has Canada and much of Europe, whilst our (Aus) authorities maintain that the science shows it is safe, and therefore have not and will not ban it. What ? Are we subject to a different set of scientific principals and realities on this side of the pond ?

Or are our (Aus) authorities beholden to some industry influenced scientific information that tells 'em that BPA in kids milk is OK ?

Or are your (USA) authorities fearing their own shadows and curling up in foetal positions under stairs, intending to remain there until they die of thirst ?

[Evo]

Just in the last three or four weeks I've seen nearly half a dozen kids with tumors which really should have been benign and they've all been nasty, malignant brain tumors. We are doing something terribly wrong. This right here throws up the red flag on this guy. There is no way that kids with malignant brain tumors got them from cell phones. There is zero evidence that this is possible.

Please do not reference anecdotes. No more references to this person. You need to look at scientific research not what some person thinks, especially when he's not making a statement based on the science.

[misnderstudge]

I am more afraid of crackpot theories slowing the progression of science. I think to take in that much electromagnetic radiation you would have to use your mobile for hours a day, and then you are more than likely to be in a high stress job or unemployed (2 because of time). But to me it would seem more likely diet AND stress would be the underling cause. Not sure if this is 100% but to me it sound more likely.

[russ_watters]

Alt, you misunderstand the concept of risk. All these studies are trying to quantify the probability: no link = no risk.

[misnderstudge]

Another point i meant to add is cell phone saves probably at least 100,000 lives every year, From lost people to early alert to EMS, Police and Fire and Rescue i know this because i am an EMT. before average time after an incident to first call was 3-4 times longer. plus i don't think there is any real risk at all. Even if there is a Mobile phone is far more likely to save you than cause any even mild harm to you so risk to risk i will keep mine.

[alt]

This right here throws up the red flag on this guy. There is no way that kids with malignant brain tumors got them from cell phones. There is zero evidence that this is possible.

Please do not reference anecdotes. No more references to this person. You need to look at scientific research not what some person thinks, especially when he's not making a statement based on the science.

Well, OK why don't we just stay focused on the thread subject here ..


May 24–31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries has been meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS
POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

The 31 scientists, the International Agency For Research On Cancer, The World Health Organisation - crackpots, one and all ?

I wonder - has the WHO being pegged as crackpots here before in the history of Physics Forums ? A cursory search of past threads here shows no such thing.

What information can we suppose that those 31 scientists used to make their classification ? Anecdote ? What some person thinks ?

[Evo]

Well, OK why don't we just stay focused on the thread subject here ..


May 24–31 2011, a Working Group of 31 scientists from 14 countries has been meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, to assess the potential carcinogenic hazards from exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS
POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

The 31 scientists, the International Agency For Research On Cancer, The World Health Organisation - crackpots, one and all ?

I wonder - has the WHO being pegged as crackpots here before in the history of Physics Forums ? A cursory search of past threads here shows no such thing.

What information can we suppose that those 31 scientists used to make their classification ? Anecdote ? What some person thinks ?Maybe your post would have some credibility if I had been talking about WHO. I said your reference to that doctor's personal opinion was not acceptable.

[alt]

Maybe your post would have some credibility if I had been talking about WHO. I said your reference to that doctor's personal opinion was not acceptable.

You precluded any further reference to said doctor, so I wasn't referring to him any longer.

..Well, OK why don't we just stay focused on the thread subject here ..
..What information can we suppose ..


By 'we' I meant not just you, but many / any others here, who have near as well labelled the 31 WHO scientists as crackpots. Does the above really sound as though I was referring just to you ?

I'm really quite interested to know how they (or you - if you share that view) form the WHO / crackpot view.

And I must add, I continue to be somewhat bemused by the animosity that this subject elicits.

edited 2nd last line

[Evo]

By 'we' I meant not just you, but many / any others here, who have near as well labelled the 31 WHO scientists as crackpots. Does the above really sound as though I was referring just to you ? You quoted me and underlined *anecdote" & *what some person thinks*. Then you posted this. So yes, it's obvious you were referring to my post.


Please do not reference anecdotes. No more references to this person. You need to look at scientific research not what some person thinks, especially when he's not making a statement based on the science.

What information can we suppose that those 31 scientists used to make their classification ? Anecdote ? What some person thinks ?

I don't remember anyone calling WHO crackpots. They are out of line with their fear mongering. I'd be interested to hear what their motive was and who was behind it. Perhaps they do have some problems with some of their contributing members.

[alt]

You quoted me and underlined *anecdote" & *what some person thinks*. Then you posted this. So yes, it's obvious you were referring to my post.

OK, well I can see the confusion in this. I was making a broader reference than that - or trying to. If you read through the thread, you will see that many other contributors have been quite disparaging of the WHO, even to the point of crackpottery, etc.

So, to cut a long story short, I just want to know what criteria is used to to form such a view (To avoid further confusion I should point out that this queston isn't specifically directed to you Evo, but feel free if you're inclined).

[Ryan_m_b]

By 'we' I meant not just you, but many / any others here, who have near as well labelled the 31 WHO scientists as crackpots. Does the above really sound as though I was referring just to you ?

I'm really quite interested to know how they (or you - if you share that view) form the WHO / crackpot view.


Have these 31 scientists released any new data or studies? Does any one have a link yet to the paper they published on this? It was my understanding that these people performed a literature review but I have not seen any data supporting their view.

Regardless of if they are scientists, doctors or binmen if they are going to make a claim I will accept it when I see some solid, peer-reviewed data.

EDIT: If you read the link that was the original post here I find the section marked "Results" and footnotes 1 and 2 very interesting with regards to the decision made by the WHO. It seems that the scientists in question concluded "insufficient data" and the WHO/Chairman took that to mean "possibly carcinogenic". That's a bit like me asking you "is there a bomb in my pocket?" and you reply "I can't tell what's in your pocket" and then I make the conclusion "there is a higher risk that there is a bomb in my pocket compared to before I asked you"

[alt]

Have these 31 scientists released any new data or studies? Does any one have a link yet to the paper they published on this? It was my understanding that these people performed a literature review but I have not seen any data supporting their view.

Regardless of if they are scientists, doctors or binmen if they are going to make a claim I will accept it when I see some solid, peer-reviewed data.

EDIT: If you read the link that was the original post here I find the section marked "Results" and footnotes 1 and 2 very interesting with regards to the decision made by the WHO. It seems that the scientists in question concluded "insufficient data" and the WHO took that to mean "possibly carcinogenic". That's a bit like me asking you "is there a bomb in my pocket?" and you reply "I can't tell what's in your pocket" and then I make the conclusion "there is a higher risk that there is a bomb in my pocket compared to before I asked you"

I don't disagree with any of that. Nonetheless, they saw fit to anounce to the world ..

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS
POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

So you're saying that the WHO may have been politically motivated ?

Or that 31 scientists can indulge in a flight of fancy ?

And that it is prudent to use our own judgment to evaluate WHO classifications ?

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't disagree with any of that. Nonetheless, they saw fit to anounce to the world ..

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS
POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

So you're saying that the WHO may have been politically motivated ?

Or that 31 scientists can indulge in a flight of fancy ?

And that it is prudent to use our own judgment to evaluate WHO classifications ?

I'm saying I'll wait to read the report. The WHO has a history of doomsday predictions (as outlined earlier in this thread) and seems to be making a decision not based on the evidence provided.

The fact is regardless of the reason; political, economical or astrological the initial release has highlighted that there is no evidence to point to an increased risk to public health but in spite of this cell phone emissions should be classed as "possibly carcinogenic".

[Proton Soup]

if there were a link, i'd expect the most obvious sign to be a shift in the left-to-right hemisphere distribution of tumors. not that people don't use both ears with cell phones, but i'd expect one side to be favored.

[russ_watters]

So you're saying that the WHO may have been politically motivated ? alt, they are not researchers for the WHO: it is their job to be politically motivated. That's the point of the WHO - to deal with the politics of health issues.And that it is prudent to use our own judgment to evaluate WHO classifications ? There is nothing to evaluate, alt: they found no risk!

And I certainly never called them crackpots.

[Ryan_m_b]

There is nothing to evaluate, alt: they found no risk!

Exactly. No one is making a judgement on the science (yet) but on the actions of the WHO after hearing the expert opinions. Although I am still confused as to why Dr Jonathan Samet, Chairman of the Working Group is quoted as saying

The evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."

When the working group is quoted as saying that there is

Limited evidence of carcinogenicity: A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

And...

Inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity: The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available.

[russ_watters]

Although I am still confused as to why Dr Jonathan Samet, Chairman of the Working Group is quoted as saying

When the working group is quoted as saying that there is

And... Well, it is impossible to prove a there is zero risk (see: mass of the photon or size of the electron), so logically, the possibility must always exist that there could be some risk. By this logic, you could classify literally anything as a possible carcinogen. Since it is logically accurate, there is no political downside to saying 'there could be a risk' even though the proper scientific course would be to say 'no known risk' and put it in a category labeled 'not shown to be carcinogenic'.

[Proton Soup]

Well, it is impossible to prove a there is zero risk (see: mass of the photon or size of the electron), so logically, the possibility must always exist that there could be some risk. By this logic, you could classify literally anything as a possible carcinogen. Since it is logically accurate, there is no political downside to saying 'there could be a risk' even though the proper scientific course would be to say 'no known risk' and put it in a category labeled 'not shown to be carcinogenic'.

it's all relative: http://potency.lbl.gov/pdfs/herp.pdf

[quasi44]

What you - and many others - are missing is the concept of signal to noise ratio. The more research done, the more signal is generated, but you ignore the fact that more noise is generated as well and the overall s/n ratio remains unchanged. This is exactly the same as the problem with "UFO research".

The WHO did not do any of their own studies, they just looked at studies that already existed. No, nothing has changed form last week. No new evidence was presented - much less "growing evidence" In order to care (or not care) about a health risk, there first has to be a health risk. The WHO didn't even say that there was! Don't try to paint me as uncaring when I don't recognize a non-existent risk. Heck: I'm a cell phone user too.

Personal attacks are unwarrented here.

A good op-ed: http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011-06-03-Ignore-WHO-fearmongering-over-cellphones_n.htm

From an investigative standpoint, a wider scope of data, like looking at brain cancer rates in people or kids of people who had worked in any of a set of targeted careers where there is known to be a high EM saturation rate in the frequency range. Military and industrial numbers from the major health providers shouldn't be beyond the reach of the WHO.

[Evo]

From an investigative standpoint, a wider scope of data, like looking at brain cancer rates in people or kids of people who had worked in any of a set of targeted careers where there is known to be a high EM saturation rate in the frequency range. Military and industrial numbers from the major health providers shouldn't be beyond the reach of the WHO.Which begs the question of why the WHO, knowing that there is no proven direct correlation, would bother announcing that maybe, there might, who knows...be some small, you know, could be like drinking coffee...

[quasi44]

Right. Like I sorta said, if there were a study that was fully scientifically valid I might try prying my kids' cellphones loose with a crowbar, but until then, I ain't riskin it.

[shoestring]

Another point i meant to add is cell phone saves probably at least 100,000 lives every year, From lost people to early alert to EMS, Police and Fire and Rescue i know this because i am an EMT. before average time after an incident to first call was 3-4 times longer. plus i don't think there is any real risk at all. Even if there is a Mobile phone is far more likely to save you than cause any even mild harm to you so risk to risk i will keep mine.

Don't worry, nobody is going to take your mobile away from you. :smile: A "possible risk" means that people who don't ridicule the idea will be reasonably cautious and avoid unnecessary use of the mobile, or text or email instead of making a call when possible. That way they can have the cake and eat it too. :smile: If it turns out to be no risk, nothing has been lost. If it turns out to be a risk, a lot has been be gained.

The risk may be small and not conclusively verified (yet), but with so many people using the phone even a small risk could, potentially, cause a great number of cases of cancer. They're not telling people to stop using the phone, they're not telling anyone to take any drastic measures, they're leaving it to people to decide for themselves. Imagine what would happen if they tried to withhold the information that there might be a risk involved, and it turns out to be true! And I don't think one should ridicule the expression "possible risk" and call it empty (not that you did). It could be their way of expressing themselves cautiously, taking care not saying too much too soon.

If mobile phones turn out to be cancerogenous perhaps it'll only lead to recommendations not to use them more than so and so many hours a year, or something like that. It will be a problem for people who depend on them at work , but there must be a way to deal with that, if necessary, just as they've found a way to deal with work-related exposure to ionizing radiation.

It's not "crackpot" theories that slow the progress of science, it's the ridiculing of ideas by calling them crackpot theories that does. :biggrin:

[shoestring]

Now someone has to explain me as why EM waves with so low energy (cannot even damage DNA) can cause a cancer; even with high intensity. These waves might increase a very very bit your brain temperature -water heat capacity being high- but so can do lots of other things like doing sport, taking a shower, etc.
If there's no physical reason to explain the conclusion that cell phone possibly can cause cancer, I won't believe it. We're not dealing with "unknown" physics as far as I know.

First of all, the energy of a single photon isn't the same as the energy of the wave. The EM wave may have high energy density, i.e. high field strenght, and who knows what effect that might have on the highly structured tissue of the brain.

Second, I think there are two ways a potential health hazard may cause cancer. Lots of damaged cells form all the time in the body, but often the immune system can deal with them and prevent them from develop to cancer. Even if the radiation can't damage existing DNA strands, the fields might interfere with the immune system's defence against cells with DNA that has been damaged from other causes. Not that I'm an expert on cancer, but I've seen that idea used in a different context somewhere, and I think one has to move away from the simplistic idea that only ionizing radiation can have an effect on the complex process leading up to cancer. Mirowaves may be fairly well understood by physicists, but hardly the complexity of either the brain or the immune system.

If there is a small risk for cancer from cell phones, that might just the tip of an iceberg. Cigarettes can cause lung cancer, but even smokers who are lucky enough not to get cancer from them often suffer other effects on their health. It's no good for the heart and blood vessels, for example. By analogy a small risk for cancer from cell phones could indicate a more widespread risk for health effects of some kind, and that's one reason why even small or potential cancer risks matter.

The brain is complex, so why people insist that there can only be an ordinary heating effect from the radiation is something I don't get. Various molecules have different capacity to absorb the energy in the radiation. (Ions, dipoles and nonpolar molecules all react differently.) Shouldn't that mean that if exposed to more or less continuous radiation, some substances will be given relatively more energy that others, in a pattern different from a simple increase in temperature? There will be a strong tendency for that energy to redistribute itself, but it's precisely in the collisions where that happens that chemical reactions take place, so as a result the normally occurring chemical reactions will take place in a disturbed energy distribution. Couldn't that be called a non-thermal effect of the radiation? The effect might be very small, but if going on for extended periods of time it could still be of some significance. Or perhaps not, but I think the argument shows that the brain shouldn't be thought of as something as simple as a bucket of water but as something complex beyond our understanding.

[Evo]

First of all, the energy of a single photon isn't the same as the energy of the wave. The EM wave may have high energy density, i.e. high field strenght, and who knows what effect that might have on the highly structured tissue of the brain.

Second, I think there are two ways a potential health hazard may cause cancer. Lots of damaged cells form all the time in the body, but often the immune system can deal with them and prevent them from develop to cancer. Even if the radiation can't damage existing DNA strands, the fields might interfere with the immune system's defence against cells with DNA that has been damaged from other causes. Not that I'm an expert on cancer, but I've seen that idea used in a different context somewhere, and I think one has to move away from the simplistic idea that only ionizing radiation can have an effect on the complex process leading up to cancer. Mirowaves may be fairly well understood by physicists, but hardly the complexity of either the brain or the immune system.

If there is a small risk for cancer from cell phones, that might just the tip of an iceberg. Cigarettes can cause lung cancer, but even smokers who are lucky enough not to get cancer from them often suffer other effects on their health. It's no good for the heart and blood vessels, for example. By analogy a small risk for cancer from cell phones could indicate a more widespread risk for health effects of some kind, and that's one reason why even small or potential cancer risks matter.

The brain is complex, so why people insist that there can only be an ordinary heating effect from the radiation is something I don't get. Various molecules have different capacity to absorb the energy in the radiation. (Ions, dipoles and nonpolar molecules all react differently.) Shouldn't that mean that if exposed to more or less continuous radiation, some substances will be given relatively more energy that others, in a pattern different from a simple increase in temperature? There will be a strong tendency for that energy to redistribute itself, but it's precisely in the collisions where that happens that chemical reactions take place, so as a result the normally occurring chemical reactions will take place in a disturbed energy distribution. Couldn't that be called a non-thermal effect of the radiation? The effect might be very small, but if going on for extended periods of time it could still be of some significance. Or perhaps not, but I think the argument shows that the brain shouldn't be thought of as something as simple as a bucket of water but as something complex beyond our understanding.Sorry, you need to back all of this up with peer reviewed studies. Nothing you posted has scientific merit for how cell phones operate AFAIK.

[shoestring]

There is no way that kids with malignant brain tumors got them from cell phones. There is zero evidence that this is possible.

You should do the same with this earlier statement of yours. When you say that "There is no way that kids with malignant brain tumors got them from cell phones" you seem to be under the impression that lack of conclusive evidence for something is the same as conclusive evidence for the opposite. That's a classic logic fallacy. What makes you think that there is no way kids could get malignant brain tumors from cell phones? That's quite a bold statement, much worse than any statement that there's a possible risk of brain tumors from cell phones.

[Ryan_m_b]

You should do the same with this earlier statement of yours. When you say that "There is no way that kids with malignant brain tumors got them from cell phones" you seem to be under the impression that lack of conclusive evidence for something is the same as conclusive evidence for the opposite. That's a classic logic fallacy. What makes you think that there is no way kids could get malignant brain tumors from cell phones? That's quite a bold statement, much worse than any statement that there's a possible risk of brain tumors from cell phones.

I think you need to tell the difference between Evo expressing her opinion and explaining her opinion and an absolute statement of fact. As a biologist I find a lot of your post tenuous (especially your description of the immune system), this combined with your lack of references strongly gives the impression that you are not in possession of the full facts.

[shoestring]

I think you need to tell the difference between Evo expressing her opinion and explaining her opinion and an absolute statement of fact. As a biologist I find a lot of your post tenuous (especially your description of the immune system), this combined with your lack of references strongly gives the impression that you are not in possession of the full facts.

So she can express and explain an opinion but I can't? :confused:

[Ryan_m_b]

So she can express and explain an opinion but I can't? :confused:

There is a difference, giving a one liner opinion (affirmative, negative, neutral) just states your position. You did not just do this, you gave a long post where you detailed what you think about specific mechanisms. For example;

First of all, the energy of a single photon isn't the same as the energy of the wave. The EM wave may have high energy density, i.e. high field strenght, and who knows what effect that might have on the highly structured tissue of the brain.

Second, I think there are two ways a potential health hazard may cause cancer. Lots of damaged cells form all the time in the body, but often the immune system can deal with them and prevent them from develop to cancer. Even if the radiation can't damage existing DNA strands, the fields might interfere with the immune system's defence against cells with DNA that has been damaged from other causes. Not that I'm an expert on cancer, but I've seen that idea used in a different context somewhere, and I think one has to move away from the simplistic idea that only ionizing radiation can have an effect on the complex process leading up to cancer. Mirowaves may be fairly well understood by physicists, but hardly the complexity of either the brain or the immune system.

If there is a small risk for cancer from cell phones, that might just the tip of an iceberg. Cigarettes can cause lung cancer, but even smokers who are lucky enough not to get cancer from them often suffer other effects on their health. It's no good for the heart and blood vessels, for example. By analogy a small risk for cancer from cell phones could indicate a more widespread risk for health effects of some kind, and that's one reason why even small or potential cancer risks matter.

The brain is complex, so why people insist that there can only be an ordinary heating effect from the radiation is something I don't get. Various molecules have different capacity to absorb the energy in the radiation. (Ions, dipoles and nonpolar molecules all react differently.) Shouldn't that mean that if exposed to more or less continuous radiation, some substances will be given relatively more energy that others, in a pattern different from a simple increase in temperature? There will be a strong tendency for that energy to redistribute itself, but it's precisely in the collisions where that happens that chemical reactions take place, so as a result the normally occurring chemical reactions will take place in a disturbed energy distribution. Couldn't that be called a non-thermal effect of the radiation? The effect might be very small, but if going on for extended periods of time it could still be of some significance. Or perhaps not, but I think the argument shows that the brain shouldn't be thought of as something as simple as a bucket of water but as something complex beyond our understanding.

Emphasis mine for sections that need references. The post reveals that you haven't even stated your position, simply espoused that you don't understand biology so you have assumed that nobody else does and made statements like "complex beyond our understanding". It is one thing to state your position, it is another to go into great depth about what you think is happening when your understanding is limited and your assumptions are baseless.

[shoestring]

And here's a reference for you:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041121220635.htm

Not exactly what I said, but a hypothesis that an increase in cancer due to a small increase in ionizing radiation might be explained by an effect on the growth of previously formed early stages of tumors.

Here's another article about the distant Chernobyl fallout:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070530080956.htm

It's pointed out in the article that

"it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop"

which is one good reason why the still weak evidence of cancer from cell phones shouldn't be ridiculed. Widespread use of cell phones is still a new phenomenon. Not that many used them decades ago!

Googling cancer + cell phones gives several millions of hits, so forgive me if I can't find the source of a study I've read about that did find a correlation between heavy use of cell phones and cancer. Know what the researchers did? The disregarded that information as unreliable, theorizing that the users who got cancer has seriously overestimated how much they had used their phones. That's why there's "no" evoidence. Sure, it could be true that their estimates were wrong, but what if it isn't? Is it good science or biased science to disregard the data that actually shows a correlation between heavy use and cancer? You tell me!

In my opinion, it makes sense to make a distinction between cell phones causing cancer and cell phones initiating cancer. They might cause cancer without initiating cancer. Don't forget the possibility that they could somehow promote growth of early stages of tumors even if they didn't cause those early stages of tumors in the first place. In other words: forget the argument that cell phones couldn't possible cause cancer because the radiation isn't ionizing. There are other roads to explore if it's a mechanism you're looking for. Not that epidemiologists primarily look for a cause, they're looking for correlations first of all.

[Ryan_m_b]

And here's a reference for you:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041121220635.htm

Not exactly what I said, but a hypothesis that an increase in cancer due to a small increase in ionizing radiation might have had an effect on the growth of the early stages of previously formed tumors.

Here's another article about the distant Chernobyl fallout:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070530080956.htm

It's pointed out in the article that

"it is usually assumed that it takes decades for cancer to develop"

which is one good reason why the still weak evidence of cancer from cell phones shouldn't be ridiculed. Widespread use of cell phones is still a new phenomenon. Not that many used them decades ago!

Googling cancer + cell phones gives several millions of hits,

Perhaps we should have been more specific, references from peer-reviewed literature. When we talk of "evidence" we don't mean how many websites are there or how many people are of the opinion. We mean hard, conclusive data. The burden of proof is on the claimant, this thread started because the WHO classed cellphones as a "possible risk" even though there is no data to justify it (they even admit this as I pointed out earlier in the thread).

EDIT: forgot to mention that neither of these stories have anything to do with cell phones. They are about radioactive fallout, please do not try to confuse this issue.

so forgive me if I can't find the source of a study I've read about that did find a correlation between heavy use of cell phones and cancer. Know what the researchers did? The disregarded that information as unreliable, theorizing that the users who got cancer has seriously overestimated how much they had used their phones. That's why there's "no" evoidence. Sure, it could be true that their estimates were wrong, but what if it wasn't? Is it good science or biased science to disregard the data that actually shows a correlation between heavy use and cancer? You tell me!

No body is being biased, we are criticising the decision because there is no good data from peer-reviewed literature. You are now making a claim that you have read a study, I would tentatively propose that you have not but you have read a story where somebody was making a claim that "there once was a study". If you know of any data showing a strong correlation between cell phone use and cancer then you are going to have to present it.

As for 'good science' it is not good science to say "there is no evidence, but what if we are wrong?" Considering that you haven't provided any references to what you are referring to we cannot say if indeed there were any researchers who were being biased, I'll believe it when I see peer-reviewed references from the scientific literature containing hard data.

[shoestring]

Emphasis mine for sections that need references. The post reveals that you haven't even stated your position, simply espoused that you don't understand biology so you have assumed that nobody else does and made statements like "complex beyond our understanding". It is one thing to state your position, it is another to go into great depth about what you think is happening when your understanding is limited and your assumptions are baseless.

So you don't think ions react differently from nonpolar molecules to wicrowave radiation? I thought that was fairly mainstream, or the very least a valid idea to present. If you try to solve Maxwell's equations for the interaction between the cell phone radiation and all the ions, molecules and tissues of the brain, I think you'll get an idea how complex the situation is. What's wrong in realizing that there are things we don't know, and try to take that into account? Isn't that better than boldly assuming that cell phone radiation can't possibly have any effect beyond a slight, insignificant heating?

[shoestring]

EDIT: forgot to mention that neither of these stories have anything to do with cell phones. They are about radioactive fallout, please do not try to confuse this issue.


No, but they've got something to do with cancer and how things that doesn't initiate it could still affect the growth of it.

The thread is more about whether or not it's reasonable to talk about risks at an early stage where there's still limited evidence. We're not trying to solve the issue of whether cell phones cause cancer or not. Should "possible risks" be ridiculed or taken seriously, that's the question, and you won't find any conclusive answers to that in peer-reviewed papers.

[shoestring]

As for 'good science' it is not good science to say "there is no evidence, but what if we are wrong?" Considering that you haven't provided any references to what you are referring to we cannot say if indeed there were any researchers who were being biased, I'll believe it when I see peer-reviewed references from the scientific literature containing hard data.

You don't have to believe anything. I'm going to assume that the people behind the WHO statement have spent more time than you reviewing the scientific literature, and that it's not for nothing that they made the statement. Had there been hard data conclusively proving a connection, they wouldn't have talked about a possible risk, they'd have made a bolder claim. It's still science in progress we're talking about.

added in edit:

See it and believe it: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/167/4/457.abstract

(Though it's not about brain tumors but about parotid gland tumors.)

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.

[Ryan_m_b]

Please don't post reply after reply after reply. It really clutters the thread.

So you don't think ions react differently from nonpolar molecules to wicrowave radiation? I thought that was fairly mainstream, or the very least a valid idea to present. If you try to solve Maxwell's equations for the interaction between the cell phone radiation and all the ions, molecules and tissues of the brain, I think you'll get an idea how complex the situation is. What's wrong in realizing that there are things we don't know, and try to take that into account? Isn't that better than boldly assuming that cell phone radiation can't possibly have any effect beyond a slight, insignificant heating?

Three issues here, firstly your comment about differing interactions was used to justify a statement that there is going to be an effect on the brain. You need to provide evidence that A) there is evidence for cell phones doing this and B) that this interaction does anything. Secondly you cannot "take into account" that which you do not know, this is an argument from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). The unknown is by definition unknown, we do not make decisions based on this we make decisions based on the data we have.Thirdly where exactly do you think I am boldy assuming that there is no effect? This thread is in response to the WHO who have made an important decision in spite of a lack of evidence supporting the cell phone/cancer relationship.

No, but they've got something to do with cancer and how things that doesn't initiate it could still affect the growth of it.

The thread is more about whether or not it's reasonable to talk about risks at an early stage where there's still limited evidence. We're not trying to solve the issue of whether cell phones cause cancer or not. Should "possible risks" be ridiculed or taken seriously, that's the question, and you won't find any conclusive answers to that in peer-reviewed papers.

Yet you have not provided any reasonable argument or evidence for why radioactive particles have a comparison to cell phones nor if the effect of affecting cancer development without necessarily affecting initiation is a phenomenon observed in cell phones. This thread is not about whether or not possible risks should be ridiculed, you have a big misunderstanding there. This thread is in response to the WHOs decision in spite of evidence. There is nothing wrong about setting a policy around possible risks, but when there is a lack of evidence that there is a possible risk that's when heavy criticism comes in.

Peer-reviewed papers are important in this latter respect because they can provide data indicating if there is a possible risk to worry about. So far the WHOs decision is basing whether or not there is a possible risk on people's opinion rather than data, this is an unhealthy and dangerous thing for the World Health Organisation to do.

You don't have to believe anything. I'm going to assume that the people behind the WHO statement have spent more time than you reviewing the scientific literature, and that it's not for nothing that they made the statement. Had there been hard data conclusively proving a connection, they wouldn't have talked about a possible risk, they'd have made a bolder claim. It's still science in progress we're talking about.

You are making a logical fallacy; specifically an argument from authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). I'm going to take it that you haven't read the link from the start of this thread nor my comment #36? The scientists who advised the WHO concluded that there was no conclusive evidence to suggest that cell phone radiation was a risk. Footnotes one and two on the results section are very interesting, what is also interesting is how in spite of the inadequate evidence from the culmination of studies looked at the WHO still announced that one study showed a 40% increased risk. This is clear cherry picking, in addition it is cherry picking from data that has been classed as;

'Limited evidence of carcinogenicity': A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent
and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or
confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

The danger here isn't that the WHO is wrong or right, it is that we have a World Health Organisation that makes decisions on poor data. It is an unfortunate politicising of science.

But none of that has anything to do with the original criticism of your post by Evo where you outlined specific biological processes before making arguments from ignorance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). Whether or not cell phones do cause or exacerbate cancer is not related to why there is criticism of your post.

[ZapperZ]

First of all, the energy of a single photon isn't the same as the energy of the wave. The EM wave may have high energy density, i.e. high field strenght, and who knows what effect that might have on the highly structured tissue of the brain.

First of all, if this is true and that you are using THIS as a basis for being concerned, then you should also be weary of visible light. Remain indoors during the day, don't turn on any lights, and only go out at night. After all, the energy density coming out of your lightbulb is certainly larger than what you get out of a typical cellphone!

Secondly, if you are arguing that such external factors can affect the immune system and inhibit an effective repairs of damaged cells, then you must show that (i) this is actually occurring and (ii) the effect on the immune system is predominantly due to such EM radiation and not any other external factors.

This is how one actually does research and obtain credible evidence.

See the latest study on this that reinforced the lack of epistemological evidence:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/28/aje.kwr112

Zz.

[shoestring]

First of all, if this is true and that you are using THIS as a basis for being concerned, then you should also be weary of visible light. Remain indoors during the day, don't turn on any lights, and only go out at night. After all, the energy density coming out of your lightbulb is certainly larger than what you get out of a typical cellphone!

No, didn't use it as cause for concern, I pointed out a flaw in the statement. It's not the wave that has low energy, it's the energy per photon that is low. Please check the statement I was commenting on! I'm well aware of the field intensity of sunshine, but you can't compare visible light and microwaves when you talk about possible effects on the brain or other deeper tissues. Visible light doesn't penetrate as deep in the brain as microwaves do.

Secondly, if you are arguing that such external factors can affect the immune system and inhibit an effective repairs of damaged cells, then you must show that (i) this is actually occurring and (ii) the effect on the immune system is predominantly due to such EM radiation and not any other external factors. This is how one actually does research and obtain credible evidence.

I'm not doing research, I'm taking part in a discussion, and my central point was that it's not just a question about whether cell phone radiation can damage DNA or not. I borrowed an idea from another study about cancer from environmental causes, and that was as a reaction to the idea that microwaves can't cause cancer because the radiation isn't ionizing. What's wrong with presenting such an idea when people seem so stuck on the fact that cell phone radiation isn't ionizing?

See the latest study on this that reinforced the lack of epistemological evidence:

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/28/aje.kwr112

I wouldn't call that study the final word on the issue. Here is a comment on a study that managed to hide a possible correlation by categorizing users of cordless phones as "unexposed":

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/12/17/ije.dyq246.extract

and here's a study that found a correlation between brain tumors and cell phones:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20551697

Edit: Actually, I think researchers play around with ideas and loose thinking AS WELL as performing conscientious work to obtaining evidence. I'm not laying the last hand to an article before publication, I'm discussing. I don't have Lee Smolins book whats Wrong with Physics here, but I think he argues somewhere in the book that methodology in "normal" science where you have a well developed theory is different from the more explorative phases before a good theory has taken form. I'm paraphrasing, and it's a few years since I read the book, but you get my drift. We don't know the mechanism, and we can either ignore and shrugh our shoulders to the possibility, or we can rely on statistics (i.e. epidemiological studies) or we can play around with ideas and perhaps find a new angle. Perhaps that's not permissible here. Perhaps that has to be left to someone else. But please understand that when people are mocking the WHO statement and using simple, cliché ideas to denounde the possibility, then that's not very good science either.

[ZapperZ]

No, didn't use it as cause for concern, I pointed out a flaw in the statement. It's not the wave that has low energy, it's the energy per photon that is low. Please check the statement I was commenting on! I'm well aware of the field intensity of sunshine, but you can't compare visible light and microwaves when you talk about possible effects on the brain or other deeper tissues. Visible light doesn't penetrate as deep in the brain as microwaves do.

But this paragraph is self-contradictory! First you argued about the field intensity. Then you backed off of it after I pointed out that other sources have WAY higher intensity than a typical microwave signal from a cell phone. So now you go back to frequency, which is actually IS just energy per photon, and has nothing to do with intensity anymore!

So yes, it is more "penetrating" for skin, at least, but then we are back to square one, which is the energy of that photon, and what mechanism is there for it to cause damage to a cell, leading to cancer! So this roundabout of avoiding the fact that such a things, PHYSICALLY, can't cause ionization is THE major hurdle that has to be addressed.

I'm not doing research, I'm taking part in a discussion, and my central point was that it's not just a question about whether cell phone radiation can damage DNA or not. I borrowed an idea from another study about cancer from environmental causes, and that was as a reaction to the idea that microwaves can't cause cancer because the radiation isn't ionizing. What's wrong with presenting such an idea when people seem so stuck on the fact that cell phone radiation isn't ionizing?

Because when one is investigating if A causes B, one has to, first of all, deal with the SHOWSTOPPER first! If you want to do something, and there's basic principles that says that it can't be done, you have to deal with that first and can't simply ignore it. Is there's an alternative mechanism (so far, there aren't any credible ones that the medical community has accepted)? Without that, physics will eventually come back and bite you!

I wouldn't call that study the final word on the issue. Here is a comment on a study that managed to hide a possible correlation by categorizing users of cordless phones as "unexposed":

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/12/17/ije.dyq246.extract

and here's a study that found a correlation between brain tumors and cell phones:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20551697

And I wouldn't call those the "final word" either! And you of all people should know that "correlation" does not imply causation! If this is so obvious, we would have settled the debate already! So what are we left now?

1. Claiming that cell phones cause cancer currently isn't backed by either statistical analysis nor physics

2. Should more studies be done? Absolutely!

3. Should credible mechanism be studied to find if non-ionizing radiation of cell phone signals could cause cancer? Absolutely!

4. Should people make claims, as of now, that cell phones cause cancer? Absolutely NOT! (See #1)

So which part of those do you disagree?

Zz.

[ViewsofMars]

This thread is in response to the WHO who have made an important decision in spite of a lack of evidence supporting the cell phone/cancer relationship.


I don't think it wise to knock down The World Health Organization. Here is the latest from WHO dated June 11, 2010. I'll just present a section of the document (Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones - Fact sheet N°193) [1] though I encourage readers to review it in its entirety.



Long-term effects
Epidemiological research examining potential long-term risks from radiofrequency exposure has mostly looked for an association between brain tumours and mobile phone use. However, because many cancers are not detectable until many years after the interactions that led to the tumour, and since mobile phones were not widely used until the early 1990s, epidemiological studies at present can only assess those cancers that become evident within shorter time periods. However, results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.

Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults. The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation. Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

While an increased risk of brain tumors is not established, the increasing use of mobile phones and the lack of data for mobile phone use over time periods longer than 15 years warrant further research of mobile phone use and brain cancer risk. In particular, with the recent popularity of mobile phone use among younger people, and therefore a potentially longer lifetime of exposure, WHO has promoted further research on this group. Several studies investigating potential health effects in children and adolescents are underway.

1. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html

[Evo]

You should do the same with this earlier statement of yours. When you say that "There is no way that kids with malignant brain tumors got them from cell phones" you seem to be under the impression that lack of conclusive evidence for something is the same as conclusive evidence for the opposite. That's a classic logic fallacy. What makes you think that there is no way kids could get malignant brain tumors from cell phones? That's quite a bold statement, much worse than any statement that there's a possible risk of brain tumors from cell phones.I'm taking it from actual studies, not someone's anecdote.

The post I responded to was
Dr. Teo says: "If the question is do I believe that mobile phones can cause brain cancer? The answer is yes, I do." Anecdote, no studies, just his *belief*.

My response This right here throws up the red flag on this guy. There is no way that kids with malignant brain tumors got them from cell phones. There is zero evidence that this is possible.

Please do not reference anecdotes. No more references to this person. You need to look at scientific research not what some person thinks, especially when he's not making a statement based on the science.

The source I base my comment on

Researchers are studying tumors of the brain and central nervous system and other sites of the head and neck because cell phones are typically held next to the head when used (see Question 3).

Research studies have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancer. A large international study (Interphone) published in 2010 found that, overall, cell phone users are at lower risk for two of the most common types of brain tumor—glioma and meningioma―compared to non-users. For the small proportion of study participants who reported the most total time on cell phone calls, there was some increased risk of glioma, but the researchers considered this finding inconclusive (see Question 3).

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

[shoestring]

All I have to say is that I'm quite disappointed with the mentors' input in this thread. I'll have to reevaluate my thoughts about physicsforums.

[Evo]

All I have to say is that I'm quite disappointed with the mentors' input in this thread. I'll have to reevaluate my thoughts about physicsforums.If you had read the guidelines, you would know that you need to back up what you post if questioned.

[shoestring]

But this paragraph is self-contradictory! First you argued about the field intensity. Then you backed off of it after I pointed out that other sources have WAY higher intensity than a typical microwave signal from a cell phone. So now you go back to frequency, which is actually IS just energy per photon, and has nothing to do with intensity anymore!

The radiation has both frequency and intensity, one doesn't exclude the other. Yes, other sources may have higher intensity, but sunshine, for example, has been around during all of human evolution. It can still harm us, but we have developed protection in the form of pigmentation and repair mechanisms. Cell phone radiation on the brain is by comparison incredibly recent, and I'm open to the idea that we could be fairly defensless against it, if it has any harmful effect on us, because of the simple fact that we haven't had millions of years to evolve in such an environment. Keep that in mind when comparing the relative strength of various sources. And I don't think your brain gets that much sunshine.

So yes, it is more "penetrating" for skin, at least, but then we are back to square one, which is the energy of that photon, and what mechanism is there for it to cause damage to a cell, leading to cancer! So this roundabout of avoiding the fact that such a things, PHYSICALLY, can't cause ionization is THE major hurdle that has to be addressed.

Because when one is investigating if A causes B, one has to, first of all, deal with the SHOWSTOPPER first! If you want to do something, and there's basic principles that says that it can't be done, you have to deal with that first and can't simply ignore it. Is there's an alternative mechanism (so far, there aren't any credible ones that the medical community has accepted)? Without that, physics will eventually come back and bite you!

One reason why I don't see it as a showstopper is that I don't see the cell phone radiation from the quantum perspective only. I think it makes sense to think of it from a classical perspective as well, i.e. as an electromagnetic wave having a macroscopic electromagnetic field.

Think of a transistor radio receiving a signal. The electrons in the antenna don't just receive heat, they're affected by an oscillating field driving the electrons in the antenna back and forth. That doesn't take away the fact that the radio wave also can be seen as a stream of photons. A macroscopic field can't help having an effect on charges, and there are plenty of charges in human tissue, so because of that it doesn't violate any truly fundamental principle to say that cell phone radiation affects human tissue. One mustn't forget about classial physics just because one has learnt quantum physics.

If anyone who knows more than I about antennas and classical electromagnetism disagrees with the idea that radio waves and microwaves can be seen as macroscopic fields, please let me know.

I don't think one has to find the mechanism first. Epidemiology is concerned with correlations, and correlations found can point the way towards finding a mechanism. Theory and experiment always go hand in hand, experimental results will improve the theory and an improved theory will help designing better experiments, and so on.

Physics doesn't bite, btw. Only physicists do.

[Evo]

I don't think one has to find the mechanism first. Epidemiology is concerned with correlations, and correlations found can point the way towards finding a mechanism. Theory and experiment always go hand in hand, experimental results will improve the theory and an improved theory will help designing better experiments, and so on.

Physics doesn't bite, btw. Only physicists do.Once again, where are the sources that back you up? Personal theories/overly speculative posts are against our guidelines.

[Pythagorean]

Personally, I'm more concerned about cancer from the sun, since skin cancer runs in my family.

I wonder if there's a population that could be more susceptible to cell phone radiation?

[Evo]

I have deleted the past few off topic posts. Please read the rules.

[Borek]

I hope Evo won't ban me...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phones.png

[Evo]

I hope Evo won't ban me...

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phones.pngDarn bluehairs, abusing the rules. :rofl: