Medical Cellphones vs cancer risk - WHO press release

[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?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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

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 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 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 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 what's 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 learned 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...

 

[Evo]

I hope Evo won't ban me...

Darn bluehairs, abusing the rules.