Medical Cellphones vs cancer risk - WHO press release

[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.