It's back on: cellphones *do* cause brain cancer

[JulesMaximus]

I probably use about 300-400 minutes a month. My wife uses hers more because that number is the number listed on her business card.

 

[bignateyk]

Originally posted by: tenshodo13
Does this guy realize that every second of the day, we are bombarded with Cell phone signals? It doesnt just stop if we use our own phones, people use their phones and we are caught in the cross fire. Unless he is saying specifically using a cell phone personally.

The alleged risk isn't as a result of reception. It is a result of the transmitter on your cell phone going active. A cell phone in idle mode uses its transmitter much less frequently than one in traffic.

That said, I would still be highly skeptical of any report that a cell phone can cause cancer. You never know though... I wouldn't be too worried about it unless I talked for hours a day. (I use mine like 20 minutes a month maybe)

 

[Analog]

I find it interesting that many people here jump on the bandwagon to discredit this guy. You've got to ask yourself several questions.

1. What does this guy have to gain? More patients? Fame? I'm not sure.

2. Many of the previous studies that were mentioned here failed to mention that they were funded by the cell phone makers. Does that make sense to you?

3. When cigarettes were suspected of lung cancer, most people scoffed. They were laughed at and the tobacco companies funded research to prove that lung cancer had nothing to do with cigarettes and smoking. It took many, many years for our attitudes to change. Are we not treating this the same way? You have to at least admit that you may be wrong in criticism.

4. Lung cancer has been shown to be caused by cell mutations induced by tobacco induced chemicals in the lungs that have affected cells. Some of these effects take years to come to cancer. As an electrical engineer, I understand the difference between the field strength caused by a radio tower or a wifi system at a distance. The inverse square law says that the power diminishes at the reciprocal of the square of the distance, i.e. twice the distance, 1/4 the power etc. So to make the argument that we are surrounded by sources of EM radiation that invalidates this argument is simply bunk, and indicates a gross lack of knowledge in this area. Why is it hard to imagine that having two watts of microwave radiation less than an inch from the surface of your brain should have absolutely no effect on the cells of your intelligence? I cannot with clear conscience get in front of my electronic communication class and make that statement, as we study RF transmission and reception, and this question comes up from time to time. It this hard to fathom?

5. Cancer sucks, I've seen it up close. Why anyone would freely subject themselves to added risk is hard to understand, yet when I leave the engineering building on campus, there is undoubtedly a bunch of young students puffing away where its legal to smoke on campus. The jury is still out on this one, I say minimize the risk, why not?

 

[FoBoT]

bullcrapper, electromagnetic waves are ok in my book

 

[legoman666]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused
Now wait...

If I had never used a cell phone my risk of brain cancer was something like .01%. Now that I do use one, it is .02% according to this study.

I'm so scared.

And this is one out of many studies. The vast majority of studies show no problem whatsoever.

Looked deeper...

It appears that his "study" is no study at all, but is a cherry picked "paper" of already existing studies. Oh, and it has not been peer reviewed and is published ONLY on his own website.

Ummmmm, yeah.

well, there has been an increase overall in the occurrence of brain tumors worldwide. they are looking for the reason. so there you have it.

because people live longer.

 

[jersiq]

Originally posted by: Analog
I find it interesting that many people here jump on the bandwagon to discredit this guy. You've got to ask yourself several questions.

1. What does this guy have to gain? More patients? Fame? I'm not sure.

2. Many of the previous studies that were mentioned here failed to mention that they were funded by the cell phone makers. Does that make sense to you?

3. When cigarettes were suspected of lung cancer, most people scoffed. They were laughed at and the tobacco companies funded research to prove that lung cancer had nothing to do with cigarettes and smoking. It took many, many years for our attitudes to change. Are we not treating this the same way? You have to at least admit that you may be wrong in criticism.

4. Lung cancer has been shown to be caused by cell mutations induced by tobacco induced chemicals in the lungs that have affected cells. Some of these effects take years to come to cancer. As an electrical engineer, I understand the difference between the field strength caused by a radio tower or a wifi system at a distance. The inverse square law says that the power diminishes at the reciprocal of the square of the distance, i.e. twice the distance, 1/4 the power etc. So to make the argument that we are surrounded by sources of EM radiation that invalidates this argument is simply bunk, and indicates a gross lack of knowledge in this area. Why is it hard to imagine that having two watts of microwave radiation less than an inch from the surface of your brain should have absolutely no effect on the cells of your intelligence? I cannot with clear conscience get in front of my electronic communication class and make that statement, as we study RF transmission and reception, and this question comes up from time to time. It this hard to fathom?

5. Cancer sucks, I've seen it up close. Why anyone would freely subject themselves to added risk is hard to understand, yet when I leave the engineering building on campus, there is undoubtedly a bunch of young students puffing away where its legal to smoke on campus. The jury is still out on this one, I say minimize the risk, why not?

1. No answer
2. No Idea
3. As someone who works with the sciences, I am sure you can appreciate that people do scoff at information. All to often around the internet, people are routinely accused of being sheeple (whatever that means) However, the curt, e-penis ++ posts, attempting to be as august as Saki do become rather void of witicism after a short inspection. Maybe that's what you are referring to?

4. I am just wondering where the 2 watt figure comes from? Back in the day we had 3 Watt ERP phones, (a la Zack from the early years of "Saved by the Bell"), but they haven't been in circulation in a long time, and were always analog. Ananlog was sunset this year in February in the US, so there are very limited opportunities to use one of these brick phones.

5. How do we monitor? In the U.S, you have to lobby the FCC in order to get the SAR levels changed. I really have no good reply to this.

I also read your link to the study, and going off of memory, even in the Hypothesis, he states it is for "excessive" cell phone use. Admittedly, I didn;t get much farther, but does he even define "excessive" use?

 

[bonkers325]

did you know, living causes cancer?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

I rarely spend more than a couple minutes on the phone per call. A lot of my my important communication is via text message - more discreet and harder to misinterpret.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: Analog
I find it interesting that many people here jump on the bandwagon to discredit this guy. You've got to ask yourself several questions.

1. What does this guy have to gain? More patients? Fame? I'm not sure.

2. Many of the previous studies that were mentioned here failed to mention that they were funded by the cell phone makers. Does that make sense to you?

3. When cigarettes were suspected of lung cancer, most people scoffed. They were laughed at and the tobacco companies funded research to prove that lung cancer had nothing to do with cigarettes and smoking. It took many, many years for our attitudes to change. Are we not treating this the same way? You have to at least admit that you may be wrong in criticism.

4. Lung cancer has been shown to be caused by cell mutations induced by tobacco induced chemicals in the lungs that have affected cells. Some of these effects take years to come to cancer. As an electrical engineer, I understand the difference between the field strength caused by a radio tower or a wifi system at a distance. The inverse square law says that the power diminishes at the reciprocal of the square of the distance, i.e. twice the distance, 1/4 the power etc. So to make the argument that we are surrounded by sources of EM radiation that invalidates this argument is simply bunk, and indicates a gross lack of knowledge in this area. Why is it hard to imagine that having two watts of microwave radiation less than an inch from the surface of your brain should have absolutely no effect on the cells of your intelligence? I cannot with clear conscience get in front of my electronic communication class and make that statement, as we study RF transmission and reception, and this question comes up from time to time. It this hard to fathom?

5. Cancer sucks, I've seen it up close. Why anyone would freely subject themselves to added risk is hard to understand, yet when I leave the engineering building on campus, there is undoubtedly a bunch of young students puffing away where its legal to smoke on campus. The jury is still out on this one, I say minimize the risk, why not?

Why is it hard? Well if you have an understanding of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum, it becomes blatantly obvious.
The fact is, microwave radiation is a relatively long frequency in the radiation you are exposed to.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: FoBoT
bullcrapper, electromagnetic waves are ok in my book

- Ultraviolet
- Gamma rays

 

[SandInMyShoes]

I doubt that us folks who carry our phones in our pocket have much to worry about... AFAIK, most idle cell phones send a "heartbeat" signal every 100ms, or 10 times per second--just a fraction of the transmission frequency during a conversation. This is partly why a typical battery will be drained in 2-3 hours of conversation, but can last days when idle.

As to the claim that non-ionizing radiation can NOT cause cancer: I think that's hogwash. Though anecdotal, there seems to be a *very* substantially higher occurrence of various types of cancer among radio tower climbers, who are exposed at close range to high-power transmitters of VHF and UHF RF, and various microwave frequencies (900-2300mhz for cell phones, various microwave frequencies for backhauls); all of these frequencies are non-ionizing, yet routine absorption and cancer occurrence appears to go hand in hand.

Don't scoff too loudly; this could be a very real problem, or it could be nothing. Time well tell for sure. Admittedly there's a lot of bullshit out there. I've heard some pretty wacky things in my short life, including the incredulous claim from a Korean doctor that food cooked in a microwave oven retains ionizing radiation "same as nuclear radiation".

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: Amused
The most hilarious thing here is that ANYONE gives this any credence at all.

I do! That's why my phone is covered with
these,
and I wear this.

 

[suse920]

Originally posted by: Imp
Yeah... being a 'loser' who rarely brings his phone around will no prolong my life...

🙁 A long living depressed lonely loser. I only use my phone for five minutes every twelve months. This makes me vastly superior to you because i make as little verbal communication as possible.
i keed...
but really though

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
Maybe the people already have brain cancer, which brings with it a powerful desire to use a cellphone during every damn waking moment.

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
I find his claim of 3 BILLION cell phone users world wide [ hard to believe?]. There may have been 3 Billion cell phones made in the history of cell phones. 3 Billion users would indicate that all of India, China, and a bunch of other countries combined all have ecll phones. I find that very hard to believe.

I wondered about that, too. Isn't most of the world's population impoverished? I can't imagine that there'd be cellphone coverage everywhere to support such a userbase.


Here we go.
3.3 billion cellphone subscriptions.

But although mobile subscriptions have reached the equivalent of 50 percent of the population, this does not mean that half the people in the world now have a mobile phone, since Informa said 59 countries have mobile penetration of over 100 percent -- where some owners have more than one phone.

I wonder if that takes into account family plans though (so if a family has it, does that count as one, or one for each member of the family)?

Also, even in developing nations, cell phones are big, as its much easier to setup cell towers than to run landlines everywhere. This is a big reason why Bill Gates has said that the cell phone will be the ticket to bringing computer literacy to much of the world, as a cheap cell phone can do many things, and by being tied into cell networks its a much easier way of spreading internet.

This cell phone debate is yet another topic where rational thought pretty much doesn't exist, its all extremist crap, and in the end everyone loses. I can't say I'm a fan of people further sensationalizing it in their threads. In fact, I'd say its in some ways even worse, as at least the reporter who started it is doing it for sensible (if stupid) reasons. Oh well.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: Amused
Now wait...

If I had never used a cell phone my risk of brain cancer was something like .01%. Now that I do use one, it is .02% according to this study.

I'm so scared.

And this is one out of many studies. The vast majority of studies show no problem whatsoever.

Looked deeper...

It appears that his "study" is no study at all, but is a cherry picked "paper" of already existing studies. Oh, and it has not been peer reviewed and is published ONLY on his own website.

Ummmmm, yeah.

well, there has been an increase overall in the occurrence of brain tumors worldwide. they are looking for the reason. so there you have it.

Increase in occurrence, or increase in detection?

Not to mention, is the rate actually going up, or just the number of cases (in which case, is it trending upwards just because of the larger population)? I get so sick of people saying there's more of ______ today, only they don't notice that the rate of it is actually going down, but due to a larger population, then there are more. Its all relative.