Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cell Phone Use Study Sees Increased Cancer Risk

Posted by Zonk on from the i-use-those-for-tasting dept.

Dotnaught writes "Frequent cell phone users face a 50% greater risk of developing tumors in the salivary glands than those who don't use cell phones, according to a recently published study. The study, led by Tel Aviv University epidemiologist Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, appeared last December in the American Journal of Epidemiology 'Sadetzki's findings are sure to add to confusion surrounding the already contentious debate about the health effects of cell phone radiation. Many other studies in recent years have found no increased risk of cancer due to mobile phone use, but a few have stopped short of ruling the possibility out and a few have said increased risk of cancer is small but real.'. Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."

12 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder... by spun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year. So, how much does talking on your cell while driving increase those odds?
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:I wonder... by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Talking to a person that is not present requires more concentration as you lose out on all the visual clues that are absorbed during a discussion.

      On top of that, many people CANNOT talk without using their hands. This is a direct conflict with driving, which requires use of at least one hand (for normal people). Yes, I have seen people driving down the road, with a headset on, AND talking with both hands... at this rate I believe that it is an activity which should get its own subcategory rank in the Darwin Awards runner's up list.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    2. Re:I wonder... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I only used the "Friend in the car" as an example of distracted driving.

      It matters not if you are eating, talking on the mobile, using the computer, reading a magazine/newspaper, or what have you.

      All show signs that complete concentration are not being used for driving. When we're using directly controlled missiles with 3 sicks of dynamite of energy in them, we need our best concentration.

      I also remember what the original "Cell phones cause Cancer" was about: somebody called the Larry King show about them being diagnosed with a brain tumor after using the mobile many hours per day. One anecdote lead to mass hysteria about RF and cancer.

      --
  2. "Cancer Machine ON" by Zymergy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I love my cell phone, but every time it powers on I has the startup phrase: "Cancer Machine ON".
    So what? Chocolate makes you fat, Tobacco gives you cancer, Death and Taxes are inevitable. Until humans live forever and are tax-exempt, at least they DO have a choice on the others.

  3. if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... by sam_paris · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It doesn't matter whether the results of this study are valid or not. I can't stop using my mobile phone, as I work for a web startup I need to be constantly available if there is a site problem and having my mobile close by, always (even in my bed), is something that is 100% essential.

    In addition, I would basically be saying goodbye to my social life (what little I have of one after work) if I stopped using a mobile phone.

    Therefore, I hope this study is wrong. If it isn't I hope that mobile manufacturers can somehow make next gen phones slightly safer, if possible.

    1. Re:if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... by timeOday · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So use a bluetooth headset, leaving the more powerful cellphone transceiver further from your head. It's not the end of the world.

  4. Margin of error by wild_berry · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm skeptical about these statistics: 500 tumour patients and 1300 control subjects can't really support a probability of 0.003% and 0.0045% for each outcome, can they? I reckon that these numbers are less likely than the false-positive error for their data set.

  5. How do you hold it? by ddrichardson · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:

    Frequent cell phone users face a 50% greater risk of developing tumors of the parotid gland than those who don't use cell phones, according to a recently published study.

    The parotid gland is the largest human salivary gland; it's located near the jaw and ear, where cell phones are typically held.

    Does this simply mean we should use handsfree headsets or hold the phone away from our heads?

    I happen to hold mine in front and use the loudspeaker but that's purely because I'm deaf in one ear and don't like not being able to hear anything else that's going on.

    --
    A thistle is a fat salad for an ass's mouth...
  6. What *type* of cell phone? by JSBiff · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Ok,

          I don't have access to the main journal article, so it's possible the answer is in there, but there are potentially a lot of variables in 'cell phone' use. The article kind of hints at that in the following:

    Sadetzki says that the Israelis were early cell phone adopters and heavy users of the technology, a tendency that suggests higher radio frequency exposure than other populations. Her study found an increased risk of cancer for frequent cell phone users in rural areas, which may be attributable to the increased radiation output required when phones try to communicate in areas with fewer antennas.[emph. added] She believes that frequent mobile phone users and children face the largest increased risk of health effects.


    I would be curious if anyone has done a larger break-down of the 'risk' seen in this study, to find out if users were using older analogue phones, or newer digital, spread-spectrum phones (which, I believe, typically run at much lower power levels). What frequencies do the phones run at? (It might be, I dunno, that different mobile phone networks around the world use different frequencies, and there might be a correlation to specific frequencies used and an increase in cancer). I would also be curious to see if anyone is able to repeat this finding in other populations outside of Israel? Maybe the increased risk is really something in the air or water? Hard to say sometimes. . .

    Honestly though, if it were me, and I were living in Israel, I think there are risks I'd be more worried about than my cell phone. . . like Hezbollah missiles, Palestinian suicide bombers, another war erupting with the neighboring countries, etc. . .
  7. Re:Hmm...Actually by Killer+Instinct · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I got a new cellphone last year, its a nextel motorola i836 and was slimmer then my previous model (i760? big blue one), so i usually carried in in my right front pant pocket. I did this daily (well M-F) all day long, and often in the evenings. About 4 weeks ago, my right thigh directly under where I kept my phone, started getting nerve twitches, and it felt like the phone was ringing (on vibrate), about 10-15 x daily. Most of the time, Id pull it out and there was no call. I moved it back to my belt, on the clip, about a week ago, and within a few days the strange nerve twitchings went away.

    I do notice the phone has a lot of leaky radiation, when i set on my desk, my desk landline starts cacklin, often right before I receive a call, or tm.

    --
    #include bier;
  8. Re:Hmm... by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, a quick google search turned up that a cell phone has about a 1 watt transmitter. A Bluetooth class 1 transmitter has a power output of about 100mw, but this is unlikely to be in a cell phone. Class 2 and 3 only transmit with 2.5mW and 1mW respectively. So, at worst, the bluetooth headsets are 10x less energetic than the cell phone's transmission and more likely down around 500-1000x less energetic. I'd fear bluetooth far less (about a 500x less ;-) ) than I would fear a cell phone, which isn't much to begin with.

    --
    Necessity is the mother of invention.
    Laziness is the father.
  9. But the mechanism is real. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This translates into an effectively zero risk. The risk is so low that an individual couldn't really justify spending any time or money trying to lower it further.

    Absolutely. But then again, this is only a study regarding tumors of the salivary glands. What this and other studies DO show is that it is factually incorrect to say there can be NO effect. Often the Slashdot crowd brings up comments like, "There's no ionizing radiation!" or "impossible!", when a steady stream of studies of various forms keep showing effects. Taken in isolation, each study shows a small effect which appears to not be sufficient to do drastic things like attempting to remove all the cell phones from the world.

    What they DO show, is that there ARE biological implications and impacts of cell phones and other wireless devices, and that these are occurring through non-ionizing mechanisms which are not fully understood. The solution is therefore not to make radical changes to cell phones yet, but instead, to study this much more intently. The correct approach is also to stuff a cork in the blind skepticism about the impossibility of these effects. It is more scientific to attempt to understand than to attempt to ignore. When we pursue this matter fully, we will know quite a bit more about the effects of these wavelength ranges on biological tissue and organisms than we currently do, and this is definitely worth doing with an open mind. It could lead to novel therapies, and it could lead to insights about which wavelength and protocol choices are safest. Even with JUST consideration of salivary glands, (0.0045-0.003%) * 6 billion would be 90,000 lives. If you could save a mere 90,000 lives a year by a patch which changes a protocol, or a simple infrastructure change to another wavelength, then you'd be a fool not to do it.