Slashdot Mirror
Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks
RevWaldo contributes a link to an AP story carried by Google, according to which "The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer. The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." RevWaldo continues: "One possible solution offered? 'Use a wireless headset.' No risk of EM exposure from one of them, no sirree!"
The fact is, most Bluetooth headsets are Class 2 devices, which have a maximum power of 2.5 mW. This is orders of magnitude less than the emissions from a cell phone, which can peak at 500 mW.
If the emissions from a cell phone are simply "questionable" in terms of cancer, there's no way a signal with 100x less power is. But on the flip side, the power difference between the two is so large that you COULD see them claiming cell emissions are "bad" while not seeing any problem with the much lower power emitted by Bluetooth Class 2 devices.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
And what a doozy... nothing says... WAIT, STOP, CANCER RISK!
----------------
A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies -- including some Herberman cites -- with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies."
Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.
"If there is a risk from these products -- and at this point we do not know that there is -- it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency Web site.
Still, Herberman cites a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer."
"Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use," he wrote in his memo.
A driving force behind the memo was Devra Lee Davis, the director of the university's center for environmental oncology.
"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
----------------
Here's the quote I love:
"I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
Whooo, brill!
-AI
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
Most of them (and perhaps their neighbors) have been in high RF fields for as many years as they have been licensed. I remember my station was on the second floor, so an AC safety ground was easy, but an RF ground was only possible at the lowest of frequencies. In fact if the ground wire is 1/4 wavelength long, it looks like an open circuit. So I used to have many problems where I would touch my equipment and get a very minor RF burn "ouch."
Moreover, in these cases, the exponential nature of EM fields with distance does not apply as energy appears at the station as well as at an antenna that might be far away.
I do have to note, that most of these problems have occurred in the 1.8Mhz to 50Mhz specturm, perhaps in the worst case only a 17th of the frequency that cell phones operate on. But hams have also routinely used UHF handheld transcievers for many many years, which is much more comparable to the cellular situation.
I don't know of any study relating ham radio to cancer, but then probably no one has ever studied it. But the national ham organization, the ARRL, http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfexpose.html, has been increasingly warning about potential hazards to hams, which I think is a good thing as it least in encourages proper technical practices.
Correct, and the 2.5 mW devices(class 2) have a range of about 10 meters. I believe this includes the common bluetooth headset.
In this case, the probability of getting cancer is small, the causes of most cancers are unknown, and the mechanisms by which EM energy might cause cancer are unlikely. And the solutions do not seem well considered, particularly the one involving replacing one EM device with three (the wireless link to the headset means the cellphone is transmitting both to the cell phone system and to the headset, on different frequencies; the headset's speaker might also be an EM device while the speaker on the cellphone might not be, so it could be a 1-to-4 EM change).
I realize this isn't quite the same as measuring specific airborne toxins, but Pittsburgh has some of the worst particulate pollution of any US city. http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html
We still have fewer sunny days then Seattle though.
Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
Erm..
This makes no sense. Heat is kinetic energy. EM that is absorbed *becomes* heat, but so does the kinetic energy in bullets when they're absorbed. Just as it would absurd to comment on how low the "heat from bullets" compared to the "heat from the room and your body" it may be unhelpful to compare the heat imparted from cell phone's EM emissions.
And for reference, the heat isn't comparable at all. Cell phones transmit less than 1W. YOU on the other hand are a roughly 50W space heater. That's almost two orders of magnitude difference. So you're right about one thing: if the mechanism of damage is heating, cellphones are insignificant compared to environmental factors.
Unfortunately, the claims of the anti-cell phone crowd usually do not include damage by heating.
As to another of your claims, that the sun puts out more radiation than a cell-phone: this is true. It is also true however that the sun puts out quite a bit less radiation in the same band as the cell phone.
Please review your essay. It does the cause of skepticism no good to include pseudo-scientific reasoning against chicken-little techno-panicking.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
the cell phone does ramp up to dangerous levels when it has bad reception.
Cell phones generally transmit at 300 mW in normal cases, and can boost to 3 W (3000 mW) in bad reception cases.
Now consider that the skin of (say) a public city bus reflects the microwaves within the chamber, and you have a recipe for being toast.
Not quite. The concern about cell phones is that the transmitter is a centimeter or two from your head. Radiated energy decreases with r-2. A signal that bounces off of a bus wall, assuming no absorption and neglecting destructive interference, is going to be at about 2 m of travel distance, and thus will be 10,000 times weaker (i.e. equivalent to a cell phone transmitting at 0.3 mW). So you don't have to worry about phones you aren't using... unless, for example, there are 10,000 people using them within two meters of you at the same time.
.
In the days before smoking was banned in hospitals I made the transition from the vistor in the waiting room to the patient in the ER - acute asthmatic attack.
Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General [July 2006]
True, poor antennas means you need to use more power to get the same effect, but the effect is radiating RF. It will take the same amount of radiated RF to reach the tower no matter how efficient the antenna is. (Directionality is a problem even with good antennas they all have nulls.) You seem to be implying that when a phone uses more power because of a poor antenna, so more power is radiated, which is silly. It's just extra heat in the phone and power from the battery.
Then again, even if an antenna is too small for the wavelength being transmitted, it can be loaded to compensate for nearly all the problem.
1) not being paid IS NOT a qualification - it suggests but does not prove impartiality
2) same as above because it is the same thing in different words
personally, I think there will be less hoopla made about the dangers once a decent replacement technology comes out - then they will use this fear of radiation as reason to switch. First, RF is non-ionizing radiation - like the radiation of an ultrasound machine.
Also, to answer the comment about "burying the data" - the medical literature is full of research on this very topic - ipsilateral gliomas are associated with cell phone use in a metastudy analysis
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/article.jsp?article_id=ijo_32_5_1097
The problem with most studies of this type is that they are case controlled and there are obvious recall biases at play. I don't think this will be easy to determine by most people. The fact that the radiation is non-ionizing should put most people to ease.
some more from pub med:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18063591?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Here is a controlled trial in rats - only issue i have is distance to localized tissue - if u standardize to the weight of the animal, human tissue at closest exposure receives more radiation + many people use them long enough to heat/burn local tissue. That is a completely different effect than low heat non-ionizing radiation.
You will notice consistent lack of power in the studies described.... hope this is useful stuff.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17903030?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
When all else fails, try.
But cell phones transmit at the same frequency as the microwave oven
Hell no. If they did, your neighbor's Microwave oven would cause awful disruption if they used it when you tried to use your cell phone.
Microwave ovens operate at 2.45Ghz.
Cell phone carriers operate on licensed frequencies well outside the 2.45Ghz range.
Your typical GSM bands fall in between 400mhz and 2000mhz. Your highest frequency 3G transmission is 2100mhz.
In the US, 850mhz and 1900mhz are the frequency ranges used with GSM.
Now your cordless (non-cell phone), or your 802.11(b/g) unlicensed Wi-Fi that operate on unlicensed frequencies, are in the 2.4 Ghz range, which is the closest to the frequencies microwave ovens use.
That doesn't mean the frequencies or waveforms (amplitude, and other characterists) are exactly the same though, of course they are not!
Microwave ovens typically work at 2.45GHz.
In the US, the frequencies used are generally pretty far away from that. A meter made to show microwave oven leakage (which I suspect is the context here) is in no way applicable to a common cellular telephone.
Furthermore, such technologies as CDMA and TDMA are anything but steady in their output power. Neither a simple meter made to accurately read a steady signal nor one which is designed to read peaks will give a very good portrayal of what is really going on, as they lack the temporal resolution needed to show how these signals really behave.
So it's the wrong tool for the job. It as about as high of a bullshit factor as someone looking at a stone and saying, "This rock is too heavy for me to lift, therefore it must weigh more than 60 tons," all without ever actually trying to lift it.
Kid-proof tablet..