Medical Cellphones vs cancer risk - WHO press release

[alt]

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

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

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


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

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS
POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

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


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

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS
POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

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

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

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

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

 

[alt]

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

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

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


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

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

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

edited 2nd last line

 

[Evo]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[alt]

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

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

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

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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

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

Have these 31 scientists released any new data or studies? Does 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"

 

[alt]

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 ?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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

IARC CLASSIFIES RADIOFREQUENCY ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS AS
POSSIBLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Proton Soup]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

alt, they are not researchers for the WHO: it is their job to be politically motivated. That's the point of the WHO - to deal with the politics of health issues.

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

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

And I certainly never called them crackpots.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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

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

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

When the working group is quoted as saying that there is

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

And...

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

 

[russ_watters]

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

When the working group is quoted as saying that there is

And...

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

 

[Proton Soup]

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

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

 

[quasi44]

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

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

Personal attacks are unwarrented here.

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

Which begs the question of why the WHO, knowing that there is no proven direct correlation, would bother announcing that maybe, there might, who knows...be some small, you know, could be like drinking coffee...

 

[quasi44]

Right. Like I 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.

 

[shoestring]

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

Don't worry, nobody is going to take your mobile away from you. 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. 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.

 

[shoestring]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Evo]

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

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

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

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

Sorry, you need to back all of this up with peer reviewed studies. Nothing you posted has scientific merit for how cell phones operate AFAIK.

 

[shoestring]

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

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

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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

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

 

[shoestring]

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

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

 

[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.