Cell phone brain cancer!! ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation

[Red Squirrel]

The iMeltYourFace

Clearly they were just charging it wrong. 😀

 

[KeithTalent]

Meh. I almost never hold a phone against my head, I use my earbuds whenever I am talking on the phone. My phone is always in my pocket though, so hopefully it just acts like an electronic spermicide.

KT

 

[Brainonska511]

Stick...

stick your brain in it.

Preferably really long periods of time.

Then get back to us.

So you think MRIs are dangerous? Again, any proof of this?

 

[OverVolt]

So you think MRIs are dangerous? Again, any proof of this?

Well the exposure is minimal so I think its moot. Would you keep your head in one 24/7 for a year? I wouldn't.

I think its safer than a CT but I don't think its harmless. Safe and harmless are different in my mind.

 

[Red Squirrel]

RF is probably somewhat harmful in large quantities, heck, stick 1800 watts of RF in a metal box and it will cook stuff. This was discovered by accident when someone was working with RF and walked in front of the beam and a chocolate bar in his pockets melted. (who keeps chocolate in their pockets?)

Cell phones and wifi use rather low power RF so any harm it does to us is probably done at a slower rate than the body can repair itself. But there have been some experiments done such as growing plants near a wifi router and they did not grow as well as those that were further.

As for cell phones being harmful to your brain keep in mind that it has to be powerful enough to talk to the tower, so whether it is on your head, or on the table, it's still spewing out RF at a high enough rate that the tower can pick it up, and the tower is spewing out RF powerful enough that all cells in the area can see it. So *IF* it is harmful, it really does not matter if you even have a cell phone let alone put it near your head. Of course it will be more powerful the closer you are but in the grand scheme of things it's super small amounts of RF. A single person is probably occupying a fraction of a watt worth of RF space.

Though, one has to wonder what we are doing differently now than before, to cause a huge increase in cancer rate, but it could be a combination of things, such as all the crap they put in food these days.

 

[Brainonska511]

Though, one has to wonder what we are doing differently now than before, to cause a huge increase in cancer rate, but it could be a combination of things, such as all the crap they put in food these days.

There has not been a "huge increase" in cancer rates (see page 2 in the full facts/figures downloadable pdf).

http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2015/index

Also: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

 

[Phoenix86]

There has not been a "huge increase" in cancer rates (see page 2 in the full facts/figures downloadable pdf).

http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2015/index

It appears to me that cell phones are curing lung cancer. 😀

 

[Brainonska511]

Well the exposure is minimal so I think its moot. Would you keep your head in one 24/7 for a year? I wouldn't.

I think its safer than a CT but I don't think its harmless. Safe and harmless are different in my mind.

There is localized heating that can occur and it is not harmless. However, the hazards are minimal.

Plus, you can control the amount of localized heating by limiting the duty cycle (time radio frequencies are on over the time they are off) to allow heat to dissipate.

As for cell phone vs. MRI, I'd wager that the MRI puts out a lot more power than the paltry cellphone. And regulatory agencies have already addressed these concerns through using specific absorption rates.

Cell phones are limited to 1.6 W/kg while MRIs can range between 4 and 12 W/kg.
-------

I'm not saying you can't denature proteins - you can see this in NMR experiments with in vitro protein samples, but this is generally only seen in sensitive protein samples (eg: already somewhat temperature sensitive) and when you have very long, high power pulses. I just don't see how that particular situation would be relevant to cell phone use though and "potentially" causing cancer. I feel like that's akin to saying that water is dangerous because you could drown in a flood, so you shouldn't drink a glass of water because you could drown.

 

[bradly1101]

http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

 

[Adul]

What is the cancer rate of HAM radio operators. They are exposed to far more powerful transmissions than any typical cell phone or wifi router will be able to output. We can transmit up to 1 KW. ( Though you only need use enough power to make the connection )

 

[crashtech]

Well, I am ever the skeptic, but there was some recent evidence that something is going on. Of course it might have already been debunked, research moves pretty quickly. But the comparisons to diagnostic equipment don't really hold any water unless we are studying people who have volunteered to live and work inside a powered-up machine for extended periods.

 

[Phoenix86]

Well, I am ever the skeptic, but there was some recent evidence that something is going on. Of course it might have already been debunked, research moves pretty quickly. But the comparisons to diagnostic equipment don't really hold any water unless we are studying people who have volunteered to live and work inside a powered-up machine for extended periods.

Normally I'd simply laugh such a post off for it's source, but digging a little deeper it looks like there is a peer reviewed study backing this.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24927498

Exposure to mobile phones was associated with reduced sperm motility (mean difference -8.1% (95% CI -13.1, -3.2)) and viability (mean difference -9.1% (95% CI -18.4, 0.2)), but the effects on concentration were more equivocal. The results were consistent across experimental in vitro and observational in vivo studies. We conclude that pooled results from in vitro and in vivo studies suggest that mobile phone exposure negatively affects sperm quality.

 

[Nox51]

Those are rather wide confidence intervals for those figures.

Shrugs, I'd like to see some studies that back them up.

 

[clamum]

There has not been a "huge increase" in cancer rates (see page 2 in the full facts/figures downloadable pdf).

http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2015/index

Also: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

Yep; this is a good read which shoots down some of these urban legends/myths too: The End of Doom: Environmental Renewal in the Twenty-first Century

 

[dud]

I tell people that Einstein got the Nobel Prize for proving that cell phones can't cause cancer - decades before cell phones were even invented. Then, I tell them that making false claims sells a lot of books and makes money for dishonest people who take advantage of ignorant people.

What would you tell to someone who lost a loved one to brain cancer ... and they used a cell phone?

 

[IGBT]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...industry-suit-over-health-warning/?comments=1

It says "if you keep a phone in your pocket you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation", which is presumably an uncontroversial fact.

Whether the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation are worth a damn is an open question.


I know plenty of women who use their cleavage as a handbag to hold their phone and credit cards. It's not the majority of women but definitely commonplace.

Since breast cancer can affect as many as 21% of women who have certain genetic structure, and mortality can be as high as 7%, it's fair enough to be worried about anything that might cause breast cancer...keeping the phone next to the body may cause the phone to exceed those guidelines; if you want to know more RTFM or go online.

 

[DrPizza]

What would you tell to someone who lost a loved one to brain cancer ... and they used a cell phone?

I wouldn't tell them that it was due to cell phone use. I'd point out that after such a loss, we all try to look for answers. But, if they're seizing the cell phone as the answer, they are mistaken.

 

[GoodEnough]

There has not been a "huge increase" in cancer rates (see page 2 in the full facts/figures downloadable pdf).

http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2015/index

Also: http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html

Thanks for posting these. Very interesting to note that cancer rates have gone DOWN since advent of cell phones and internet wifi.

 

[GoodEnough]

What would you tell to someone who lost a loved one to brain cancer ... and they used a cell phone?

You show them the other 99 people who didn't get cancer from their cellphone. If someone is wearing a blue shirt, and then gets hit by car, did the blue shirt make him die?

 

[Phoenix86]

You show them the other 99 people who didn't get cancer from their cellphone. If someone is wearing a blue shirt, and then gets hit by car, did the blue shirt make him die?

Nutters: There's isn't enough research on blue shirts, the government is suppressing research, my nephew was hit by a car and he was wearing a blue shirt, etc.

 

[Artdeco]

Sigh, I thought this was resolved years and years ago, but noooooooo....

 

[Imp]

Nutters: There's isn't enough research on blue shirts, the government is suppressing research, my nephew was hit by a car and he was wearing a blue shirt, etc.

Was it the blue shirt... or was it the fact that he wore a shirt!

OMFG.BBQ.

 

[Nox51]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...industry-suit-over-health-warning/?comments=1

It says "if you keep a phone in your pocket you may exceed the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation", which is presumably an uncontroversial fact.

Whether the federal guidelines for exposure to RF radiation are worth a damn is an open question.


I know plenty of women who use their cleavage as a handbag to hold their phone and credit cards. It's not the majority of women but definitely commonplace.

Since breast cancer can affect as many as 21% of women who have certain genetic structure, and mortality can be as high as 7%, it's fair enough to be worried about anything that might cause breast cancer...keeping the phone next to the body may cause the phone to exceed those guidelines; if you want to know more RTFM or go online.

Ok I'll bite. Propose a convincing mechanism to explain how non ionising radiation causes genetic damage leading to cancer.

 

[RandomTask09]

Many people like to say that we are swimming in all kinds of RF from both natural and man made sources alike, and it doesn't have any effect on us. This is true for the most part, however the RF that we are persistently exposed to can basically be considered a homogenous “sea” that has no net vector. Coupled with the inverse square law, it's pretty easy to see why normal RF doesn't normally effect us. With a cell phone however, you are putting a highly directional source right up against your head. Sure the overall power emitted by a cell phone antenna is comparatively weak to other common sources, but the distance between your cells and the source is so small that a cell phone is easily the most dominant RF source when it's pressed up against your body.

I could definitely see how EM waves emitted by cell phones could be cancerous due to prolonged exposure over the course of many years. Radiation does not need to be ionizing to have an effect on molecules and cells. Nucleotides in DNA and RNA are highly polar molecules. The magnetic filed produced by a cell phone antenna could easily be strong enough to interrupt the DNA replication and transcription processes, and if so, nasty things could begin to happen after a long enough time.

I'm not saying I actually think cell phones are dangerous mind you. I just don't balk at the idea that there may actually be harmful effects at the molecular level that haven't been fully studied yet, or ridicule the notion that cell phones could indeed cause cancer just because “dur non-ionizing radiation” like so many others do.

 

[bradley]

Many people like to say that we are swimming in all kinds of RF from both natural and man made sources alike, and it doesn't have any effect on us. This is true for the most part, however the RF that we are persistently exposed to can basically be considered a homogenous “sea” that has no net vector. Coupled with the inverse square law, it's pretty easy to see why normal RF doesn't normally effect us. With a cell phone however, you are putting a highly directional source right up against your head. Sure the overall power emitted by a cell phone antenna is comparatively weak to other common sources, but the distance between your cells and the source is so small that a cell phone is easily the most dominant RF source when it's pressed up against your body.

I could definitely see how EM waves emitted by cell phones could be cancerous due to prolonged exposure over the course of many years. Radiation does not need to be ionizing to have an effect on molecules and cells. Nucleotides in DNA and RNA are highly polar molecules. The magnetic filed produced by a cell phone antenna could easily be strong enough to interrupt the DNA replication and transcription processes, and if so, nasty things could begin to happen after a long enough time.

I'm not saying I actually think cell phones are dangerous mind you. I just don't balk at the idea that there may actually be harmful effects at the molecular level that haven't been fully studied yet, or ridicule the notion that cell phones could indeed cause cancer just because “dur non-ionizing radiation” like so many others do.

Oh great post. You echo my exact sentiments as well. I just hope your next post isn't one trying to give away free iPhones. lol

To the naysayers, the poison is always in the dosage. Prolonged exposure at close proximity is just asking for trouble. Common sense should be your best guide.

Though I'm actually worried more about exposure from things way more beyond our control like dirty EMF from power sources and positive ions from electronic devices and appliances.