Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Medical Cell phones: Tumor risk?

  1. Dec 10, 2007 #1

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=news-bytes-of-the-weekis
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 10, 2007 #2

    somasimple

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones.

    Salford LG, Brun AE, Eberhardt JL, Malmgren L, Persson BR.

    Department of Neurosurgery, Lund University, The Rausing Laboratory and Lund University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. Leif.Salford@neurokir.lu.se

    The possible risks of radio-frequency electromagnetic fields for the human body is a growing concern for our society. We have previously shown that weak pulsed microwaves give rise to a significant leakage of albumin through the blood-brain barrier. In this study we investigated whether a pathologic leakage across the blood-brain barrier might be combined with damage to the neurons. Three groups each of eight rats were exposed for 2 hr to Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) mobile phone electromagnetic fields of different strengths. We found highly significant (p< 0.002) evidence for neuronal damage in the cortex, hippocampus, and basal ganglia in the brains of exposed rats.

    PMID: 12782486 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
     
  4. Dec 10, 2007 #3
    Salivary gland tumors[parotid gland], are some what rare. I've not noticed, nor have I read any information in reguards to a increase in this type of tumor, over the past 20 years in the the US.
    Exposure to certain radioactive substances, nickel alloy dust or silica dust {the last two more common in rural areas of the middle east}, are known to cause salivary gland tumors.
    I would be more interested in cell phone research done in areas away from known carcinogens. I would think these studies will follow soon.
     
  5. Dec 27, 2007 #4
    What is the frequency most cellphones operate under? Our home phones are reaching 6.0Ghz, with 5.8Ghz and 2.4Ghz being the most common... if the cellphone frequency is anywhere near this, a conjunction usage between home and mobile phones could potentially increase the risk of developing tumors to an even higher level, couldn't it?
     
  6. Jul 24, 2008 #5

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7523109.stm
     
  7. Jul 24, 2008 #6

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The USA Today article is pretty good - slams the guy pretty hard:
    They go on to list a bunch of studies showing no evidence. And this guy cites no research to base his warning on.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-23-cancer-cellphone_N.htm
     
  8. Jul 24, 2008 #7
    Worst-case scenario is we all have to wear grounded tin-foil hats.
     
  9. Jul 24, 2008 #8

    Mech_Engineer

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It seems likely to me that IF cell phones put off enough power at a high enough frequency to cause damage to cellular processes (most research seems to find this unlikely), then this effect may be subject to something simlar to Radiation Homeostasis.

    In a nutshell:
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2008
  10. Jul 24, 2008 #9

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    There is no reliable evidence to support this concern. The wavelengths involved are nowhere near ionizing, so any effect would have to be thermal. The energy involved is pretty low so even thermal effects will be minor.

    That said, I deliberately use my bluetooth headset in order to have a lower RF dose. I don't think there is a big risk from cell phone radiation, but why take even that small risk when there is an alternative.
     
  11. Jul 24, 2008 #10

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Only the home 'cordless phones' use those high frequencies, not cell phones. The highest cell freq I am aware of is the 2110-2215 MHz band for UMTS / 3G. The home cordless can be fairly high power now too - up to one watt compared to three watts peak power for a cell.
     
  12. Jul 24, 2008 #11

    mheslep

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    This quote in the article from director Devra Lee Davis is a fun game:

    Let me try:
    "I don't know that listening to blather from University directors is dangerous. But I don't know that it is safe"

    "Children should listen to alarmist grant obsessed University directors only for emergencies because their brains are still developing.

    Adults should keep a safe distance away from alarmist grant obsessed University directors, and even go so far as to avoid them in public places because it risks exposure to brain rot and personal funds depletion."
     
  13. Jul 24, 2008 #12
    Thanks Ivan....for the report.. I personally just recently have been diagnosed with a tumor IN MY SALAVARY gland JUST AFTER 2 months of extensive cell phone use holding the phone next to my cheek on that side of my face. There is no doubt in my mind what caused it. Fortunately it is benign.

    Amazingly I had studied this years ago and knew of the radiation dangers and didn't take precautions anyway.

    A friend of mine just got out of the hospital for surgery of the same thing...in the salavary gland...and I was just looking for reports to confirm this serious problem which has been censored and 'pooh poohed' by the cell phone industry for years, and who apparently don't want the truth to come out.

    It reminds me of the Cigarette industry which was in a constant state of denial for years.

    Thanks again.

    P.S. Thanks Gokul for ressurrecting this thread. It was that very article that I saw today on line that got me realizing that others are finally willing to speak out....
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2008
  14. Jul 24, 2008 #13

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I seriously doubt that a tumor would have gotten to that stage after two months of cell phone usage, or could have been caused by a cell phone. It just doesn't happen like that.
     
  15. Jul 24, 2008 #14
    Yes, it DOES happen like that ....I suggest you listen to others who know more than you and gain some knowledge from those of us who have had the personal experience as well as the physics....

    You can doubt all you want, evo, but I'm the one who has it ...NOT you....

    Just to clarify for others....
    The lump was not there 3 months prior..... , only after two or possible 3 months of heavy phone usage I detected the lump bulging out the side of my neck when I was shaving....Had it been there before that time I would have noticed it ....so yes, it grew within that period of time. ....Since you, evo, have no knowledge of my situation, you are making the same type of foolish generalizations that the 'cigarettes cannot cause cancer' people made years ago , AKA, denial of reality.

    The docs made a ultrasound on it and said it was a tumor with calcifiction in that salivary gland .

    ..
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2008
  16. Jul 24, 2008 #15

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    As someone who does physics, you must know that personal experience is among the poorest kind of scientific evidence. But as for the science behind radio frequency induced tumors, I wasn't aware that there was a known mechanism, so am all ears (eyes), if you could explain.

    We realize that this is a personal issue for you, but we must concentrate on the science.
     
  17. Jul 24, 2008 #16

    Dale

    Staff: Mentor

    You cannot, in principle, PROVE a negative. Nobody doubts that you got a tumor and nobody doubts that you use a cell phone frequently on that side, but those facts together don't indicate a causal relationship. That is a very common logical error.

    Establishing a causal relationship scientifically is a much more difficult process: you need to propose a mechanism, identify extraneous factors, design a study to test your mechanism, account for the identified extraneous factors, etc. The scientific process is important shouldn't be trivialized by jumping to conclusions either way.

    I am glad it is benign, and hope everything works out.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2008
  18. Jul 24, 2008 #17

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Creator, before cell phones were invented, did anyone ever get such tumors? If so, how?

    If the link is so strong that you can get a tumor from two months of cell phone usage, why don't I have one? I've been using a cell phone for years.
     
  19. Jul 25, 2008 #18

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Russ, it may well be that the salivary gland tumor is a response to both the radiation as well as some other condition(s) which you don't have.
     
  20. Jul 25, 2008 #19

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    While there is always the possibility that there is a small, at-risk population, with the current number of heavy cell phone users, if such short-term exposure could induce tumor growth, and with so many who have been using cell phones for much longer periods than just two months, we would have observed such an increase in tumor incidence in the general population that nobody would be able to refute the epidemiological studies.

    But, anecdotal evidence of the type provided is simply not science. Parotid tumors have developed in people long before cell phones existed. That same incidence rate would be expected to continue. With the increase in cell phone usage, of course many of those people will have used cell phones, just as prior to then, many of those people will have watched TVs, or talked on landline phones, or used soap at the time the tumor appeared. None of that indicates causation if there is no statistically significant increase in the cell-phone using population compared with the non-cell-phone using population, or in the TV watching population vs to the non-TV watching population, etc.

    Because another point of contention here was the rate of tumor growth, I want to clarify that yes, indeed some tumors can be rapidly growing and develop and appear within that time frame. And, in particular, one in a gland very near the skin surface is likely to be detected quite quickly since it is readily palpable.
     
  21. Jul 25, 2008 #20

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    That was going to be my guess that what you had was simply a calcification blocking the salivary gland. I've had that twice, but both times the blockage cleared by itself. My doctor said that if it keeps happening that I will need to have the gland surgically removed.

    This is a common disorder. Creator you may relax because this is not caused by radiation.

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001039.htm

    Also, since you seem worried, here is more about the formation of cysts due to calcification (stone) blockage. Although the infection and swelling that was caused is gone, I still have a small lump the size of a pea which the doctor told me is nothing to worry about.

    http://www.csmc.edu/11367.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2008
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Cell phones: Tumor risk?
  1. Cell (Killing) Phone (Replies: 12)

Loading...