Medical Cellphones vs cancer risk - WHO press release

  • Thread starter Thread starter Borek
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cancer Release
AI Thread Summary
The WHO's recent classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" has sparked debate regarding the potential cancer risks associated with cell phone use. While evidence linking cell phones to glioma and acoustic neuroma is considered limited, many argue that further research is necessary to clarify any potential health risks. Critics express skepticism about the validity of the WHO's findings, citing a lack of definitive studies and suggesting that the classification may contribute to unnecessary fear. Some participants advocate for precautionary measures, such as using headsets, while others dismiss the concerns as overblown. The discussion highlights the ongoing need for comprehensive research to understand the implications of cell phone radiation on human health.
Borek
Mentor
Messages
29,122
Reaction score
4,541
WHO press release "IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS"

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.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
"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.
 
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.
 
russ_watters said:
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.
 
IARC says that cell phone radiation is "possibly carcinogenic to humans"

Maybe the hysteria over cell phones and brain cancer wasn't as ridiculous as it seemed. The 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


qntty said:
Maybe the hysteria over cell phones and brain cancer wasn't as ridiculous as it seemed. The 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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ivan Seeking said:
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
 
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
 
  • #10
Lambert said:
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
And 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.)
 
  • #11
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:
 
Last edited:
  • #12
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.
 
  • #13
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?
 
  • #14
JaredJames said:
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 believe there have been any studies that found an actual link to cancer.
 
  • #15
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.
 
  • #16
My daughter only uses hers for texting, so her thumbs are at risk?
 
  • #17
Evo said:
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
 
  • #18
fluidistic said:
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.
 
  • #19
russ_watters said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.
 
  • #22
Chi Meson said:
The WHO has obviously been studying the comments beneath Youtube videos.
That might be the truest statement anyone has ever made.
 
  • #23
alt said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Interesting list. They have a bunch for asbestos on there, too.
 
  • #26
russ_watters said:
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/...-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 [between mobile use and cancer]."

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. 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 ?
 
  • #27
alt said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
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.
 
  • #29
Alt, you misunderstand the concept of risk. All these studies are trying to quantify the probability: no link = no risk.
 
  • #30
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.
 
  • #31
Evo said:
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 ?
 
  • #32
alt said:
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.
 
  • #33
Evo said:
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
 
  • #34
alt said:
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.


alt said:
Evo said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Evo said:
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 question isn't specifically directed to you Evo, but feel free if you're inclined).
 
  • #36
alt said:
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 anyone 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"
 
Last edited:
  • #37
ryan_m_b said:
Have these 31 scientists released any new data or studies? Does anyone 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 ?
 
  • #38
alt said:
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".
 
  • #39
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.
 
  • #40
alt said:
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.
 
  • #41
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #42
ryan_m_b said:
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'.
 
  • #43
russ_watters said:
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #45
quasi44 said:
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...
 
  • #46
Right. Like I sort of 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.
 
  • #47
misnderstudge said:
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:
 
Last edited:
  • #48
fluidistic said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
shoestring said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Evo said:
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.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top