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!"
Does he have ANY justification, other than "there *might* be a risk"?
So, if I tell him the sun MIGHT not come up tomorrow, will he not bother going to work? After all, I can't prove that the sun isn't coming up tomorrow - there's always some chance it won't.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
The speaker in my desk phone is an EM-emitting device. Maybe I should be worried about that! I think I may need some grant money to study the health side-effects of me having to answer the phone.
Bearded Dragon
If somebody so high up in the Cancer Center quotes non-existing non-peer-reviewed (and generally biased) unpublished research in justifying "cellphones will give you cancer" announcements, what can you expect from the rest of the Center?
Better go elsewhere. Like Houston...
Hyperom.com
putting shielding around the antenna blocks the wireless signal. That's why it's called shielding. It shields.
And the extendable antenna doesn't move the transmission away from your head, the antenna transmits over the entire length, not just the tip. Extendable antennas increase reception by increasing the overall length of the antenna. My old sprint PCS phone was 1/4 wavelenth when collapsed and 5/8 wavelength when extended.
On one hand, you've got the moonbats who see conspiracies everywhere and are all about what THEY don't what you to know THEY'RE doing, though they aren't quite sure who THEY are, but THEY are most certainly out to get us.
On the other hand, well, just look at all the shit we've been lied to about. Is it plausible that the cell phone industry went to market with products whose impacts weren't fully researched with consequences they themselves never dreamed of? Gee, let's see if we can think of another industry with a similar nasty surprise...oh, right, Big Tobacco. I seem to recall them insisting for years that there was no link between ciggies and cancer. I don't seem to recall too many consequences for these people lying to us, for obfuscating the debate with deliberately fabricated bullshit masquerading as science, and thus condemning more people to death.
The part that really pisses me off here is if there really is a cancer risk, you know damn well the cell companies will do their damnedest to cover it up and pretend there's nothing wrong, even while people continue to die. In fact, it would be utterly surprising if they did anything but this.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
The fact that he's an expert on this subject does not mean he is always right about this subject.
The tips include warnings not to use your phone on a bus, so as not to passively expose others. I'll take that as text book FUD. In the video footage that accompanies the news piece here, when asked why there's a lack of evidence to support such advice the answer is that "you [don't] want to have enough sick or dead people, before you take action, to prevent harm...". Apparently, there's not enough data about cell phones leading to death simply because we don't want people to die. The current evidence infers that we should have minimal concerns for this issue. Does that make this public health warning unethical, or just proactively cautious? A brief review of the clinical research is here. I personally think this is worth losing his position over. In my view panic-inducing pseudo-concern ends up with a backlash against science. We should trust our MDs to advise us for our health, and this is not currently a health issue. If the research changes that in a decade, we can talk about it then.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
The wireless headset is probably a much lower power transmitter than the one in the phone.
-mkb
OK, this is about the thousandth bogus report on this. Based on the dramatic increase in cellular use, and long term it has been used over, there is NO STATISTICAL CORRELEATION to cell phone use and cancer. Not by individual use studies, not by geographiucal correleation of users to cancer outbreaks, nothing.
Brain tumors numbers are up mostly because WE'RE ACTUALLY MORE CAPABLE OF FINDING THEM vs 30 years ago...
No mathematical model has yet been proposed to show any correlation between radio waves from publically accessible technology (obviously excluding X-rays here...) of ANY KIND, including exposure to microwave ovens, high power transmitters, TV, and more. The only thing we're somewhat sure of is that close proximity to extremely high voltage lines "could" be hazardous, but even there they're not 100% sure...
In fact, though cancer detection rates seem to be up, again, mostly due to our ability to better detect it, and due to an increased population of elderly and longer life spans, on the whole, it's believed we've actually reduced the likelyhood of cancer across the board aven with our increase in exposure to these waves.
Cancer is a DNA level response. They have not shown that DNA even respons to these frequncies of emission that I have heard. Does this guy know otherwise, and can he prove it? (cuz others have disproved it)
Granted, I'd be happier if the cell phone use culture was adjusted dramatically, especially use while driving and while in quiet environments, but crap science like this just pisses me off. I'm also sick and tired of the pharmacitical and medical industry in general, proposing medicines that cost more, and have worse side effects than current medice we have today, spending billionjs in marketing to people who have no medical knowledge or rational decision making ability, and billions "buying" doctors to prescribe the crap.
If the cure for a headache makes my nose bleed, my vision blurry, prevents me from driving a car, causes stomach ulcers, and could cause my kidneys to fail or heart to stop, i'll deal with the headache!
Also, even if it has a 1:10,000 chance of causing me cancer, I've got a 1:100 chance of being killed in my car, should I stop driving now too?
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Bluetooth RF emissions are way way way lower than cell phones. Give it some thought. Bluetooth has an operating range of about 30-50 feet or so. Cell phones can reach cell towers that are miles away.
But BT uses 2.4 Mhz which is a harmonic of the water atom. Anything with water in it will tend to heat up when exposed.
Cell phones are not.
BT could be worse than Cells and you wireless phone at home could be very bad.
Over all I am not to worred about any of it.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
"One possible solution offered? 'Use a wireless headset.'"
That's idiotic so use a wired headset. Duh!
RTFA. The rest of the sentence making that suggestion points out that a bluetooth headset emits only about 1/100th of the power of the cellphone. (Hardly surprising, since it only needs to radio-link for a couple feet rather than a couple miles.)
The next sentence suggests a wired handsfree device - which MAY reduce exposure. (It may not reduce it as much as switching to a wireless handsfree, because some of the phone's RF may couple to the wire and be carried up to the wired headset. Lots of devilish details trying to figure out HOW much...)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm ok with asking for a grant. However, I'm not so keen on asking for a press release.
Where's the data? (config -80'sArbys)
Be careful of your thoughts; they could become words at any minute...
The air in Pittsburgh isn't all that bad, seeing as how most of the mills closed *decades* ago. My, how the stereotypes and generalities persist.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
How many cellphone tower worker do we have out there ? .. What kind of health problems you guys have?
Are you or your fellow cellphone tower workers dying of cancer?
If not you know the transmitter there at yiur work is hundreds of watts or more . Hundreds of times more powerful than a cellphone
and obviously on the same frequency as the much lower power cellphones
If you guys are not dying of cancer,then the low power cellphone doesn't likely cause cancer
so tell us
There must be millions of cellphone techs out there are you dying of cancers ?
your exposed to those signals 8 hours a day and 40 hours a week at much higher power density The answer to that tells us much more
and you guys probably have a cellphone to your ear much of the day as well
are you guys dying or not ?
I
If no I Think we can safely say that cellphones don't harm us
The cancer rate of a cellphone tower
worker should exceed a cellphone user in any case
If it's the secretion of stress hormones, that probably has nothing to do with the radiation. It probably has to do with dealing with the assbag on the other end while driving your car, hoping not to hit some other brown nugget in his car talking to some git on the other end.
"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.
That statement isn't supported by the data either. One really obvious problems with all these studies is that cell phone technologies keep changing, including frequencies, usage patterns, cofactors, and encodings. For example, AMPS at 800 MHz might be harmless, while HSDPA at 2100 MHz might be quite harmful after a decade of usage, yet none of these studies would show that. There are many other statistical effects in such retroactive studies that could hide even a substantial risk.
So, we simply don't know.
Your brother measured the output and determined that, in his opinion, it can rise to dangerous levels. Even if that's true, what about the actual frequency being output? Not all frequencies will have the same effect.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
"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."
What this really proves is that we need to make sure that crazy people like this woman are not involved in making public policy decisions. You should at least have some indication that something is unsafe, or may be unsafe before you start issuing alarmist advice like this. If we waited until we knew for sure that every god damned little thing was safe before we started using it, we'd still be living in caves!
What's your brother's qualification to determine what "dangerous" levels of RF from a phone are? In particular, what makes him MORE qualified than the FCC, FDA and other government agencies that set maximum transmit power levels for mobile phones?
900 MHz is a frequency at which body tissue absorbs RF energy. And you're holding the antenna up to your head.
Keeping RF away from your body has always been good practice. Current ARRL and FCC guidelines for RF exposure suggest that 5W near the body is about as much as you should permit. I'd want to be 10 to 100 times lower than that for regular exposure, and I'd also be concerned if the frequency was one that's absorbed well.
I use hands free whenever possible and keep my calls short.
Peter, KA1AXY
Heh. No.
The question is, does Ms. Davis have any solid evidence whatsoever to back up alleged medical advice that could so profoundly affect (and perhaps panic) millions of people, to say nothing of potential economic consequences?
And since the answer seems to be a resounding "no", all that is demonstrated here is the speaker's deep credulity, alarmism and incompetence, and her future statements on scientific/medical issues should be evaluated as strongly suspect in credibility.
If there were the slightest shred of solid proof that there's a problem, she'd be right to spread the alarm far and wide. In this case, it appears she is happy to spread Internet urban legends without the slightest thought to the consequences.
Kythe
Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).
I would really like to see some more recent studies on this subject. I see a lot of reference, that they always take us to other references and so on. And yes, I know about "WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control" and all that other crap. Yes, exposure to tobacco can cause all that. I don't doubt smoking wreck havoc on the smoker's system, but that is a whole different deal.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that smoking in closed spaces (restaurants etc) should be banned (unless you have separated smoking areas). If nothing else, the smoke and stink of it blowing in one face is enough. Can you imagine having dinner with someone farting in your face ?
Based on my own empirical evidence, I would say the amount of smoking related toxins a non-smoker inhales is less than 1% of the total toxins he inhales during a regular day. Unless, of course, you are closed in a room, with little to no ventilation, with 10 smokers, but I don't think that is what people refer to as "passive smoking".
Identifying and dealing with a problem is all very good. Blowing it our of proportion is not.
morcego
Regardless of health related issues, second hand smoke is annoying and disgusting if you do not smoke yourself.
Similes are like metaphors
Actually, my brother had to get a microwave meter, and needed to test it out. As part of his tests, he looked at the microwave output during various conditions of usage (that is, good reception --> bad reception). What he said is that the cell phone does ramp up to dangerous levels when it has bad reception.
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.
I don't have more detail than that, but in line with that... yes, I'd say that it is wise to avoid using cell phones.
Even though the articles have been kept out of refereed medical journals, it's no secret.
So basically you draw a conclusion from what amounts to almost anecdotal evidence. Dangerous amounts? According to what exactly? If the output were at truly dangerous levels, we would see some evidence of that since people get crap reception all the time. Even if the output is at supposed dangerous levels (i.e., dangerous enough to cause noticeable damage), all studies thus far indicate that exposure to these dangerous levels in the amounts correlating with typical cell phone usage do not cause any damage. This seems to imply that the moniker "dangerous" is inappropriate.
You forgot one other important "feature" of the precautionary principle: ignore any costs associated with stopping the behavior in question.
... well, we just can.'
/. who think they know better what contributes to other people's happiness. Not taking into account the loss of these benefits is precisely what the PP entails.
Hence, in applying the PP to "climate change": 'Sure we're uncertain, but given the possible risks, we should drastically cut our reliance on any practical sources of energy immediately. We can safely ignore the costs of cutting off this supply of energy, because
Cell phones provide real benefits to people's lives, despite the protests of all of the little social engineers on
If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
Except all studies show that the act of holding the phone to your head isn't the problem. Doing just about anything else, including talking to other riders in the vehicle, is just as dangerous as talking on the phone.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
Cell phones generally transmit at 300 mW in normal cases, and can boost to 3 W (3000 mW) in bad reception cases.
Not true for modern digital handheld phones. Do you realize the battery you'd need to run a 3W RF transmitter for any useful length of time? It sure as heck isn't one of those tiny lithium-polymer jobs.
A dangerous amount being?
"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."
no, you don't.
"I don't have more detail than that, but in line with that."
so no actual facts? great.
"Even though the articles have been kept out of refereed medical journals, it's no secret."
Ah, it's all part of a grand conspiracy. I see.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Here ya go *thumbs up emoticon*
Regardless of health related issues, second hand smoke is annoying and disgusting if you do not smoke yourself.
So is having to listen to music other people play in public places, either with their cell phones or in their cars, having to listen to loud (telephone) conversations, etc..
Why don't you ban alcohol? Why don't you fine someone who hasn't showered?
I find it disgusting when you eat meat, I find it annoying and disgusting when people go hunting, I find it disgusting when women dress like sluts, and so on...
You people just want to ban something for the sake of banning something because you want it your way and that's the right way.
...to say nothing of potential economic consequences?
What about the economic damages if cell phones ARE found to cause cancer in the long? AFAIK, if that turns out to be the case, than the economic damages (shortened life span, medical costs) are for the users and society as a whole. I don't see why potential economic consequences which could affect a limited number of companies should outweigh the potential economic consequences for hundreds of millions of users.
Now, you won't hear me saying that cell phones cause adverse health effects (such as cancer), but seeing the huge number of studies which do show that cell phones have biological effect, I think it is fairly naive to think that none of those effects will have any adverse health effects, especially not in combination with other factors (similar like smoking and indoor radon/polonium pollution).
It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
I think the implication is that it's 3W peak, not 3W continuous.
That article in New Scientist was supported by a manufacturer of those little EM blockers a few years ago. We have our own testing equipment and have thoroughly disproved their findings. While some of the EM field couples to the headset, it only does so for the first 0-3cm (depends on location of headset). In our measurements, the EM absorption from a wired headset is 0. The EM absorption from Bluetooth is 1/100th of that from a mobile phone. The only increase in radiation absorption from using a headset occurs when the phone is placed next to the body while using the headset since muscle mass near the phone (heart, leg, etc) absorbs microwave energy at 4 times the rate as your brain does.
RF engineers can only demonstrate how much radiation can be measured at a certain point within your head. We cannot show any medical causality without decades of statistics. All the medical studies that have been published over the past 10 years are largely inconclusive (there is a ratio of 50:50 for "no harm" vs "bad"). In addition, a 2-3 year study cannot effectively be used to predict a 20-30 year trend--especially with microwave energy since the effects are largely due to the intensity of the radiation.
And while some of us may place faith in the FCC, they know very little as well. For example, the FCC regulation specifies that the EM absorption is measured and certified in the brain tissue next to the users' ears. Since the EM absorption is a near field effect (within 1-2 cm), the cell phone manufacturers (including the Apple iPhone) started placing their antennas at the bottom of the handset. So while your brain is now absorbing much less energy, your lymph nodes are getting much more and the manufacturers can pass the FCC certification.....
In the end it is personal choice--do you "feel" safer using a headset. Are you ultra-paranoid--don't use a phone, stand next to a microwave oven, live in a shield box like some people in Northern Scandinavia do (they believe they are allergic to electricity).
Most lay people--and many doctors, seemingly--seem to think health science is only conducted epidemiologically. They do not understand that well-understood mechanical theory can be sufficient to disprove a causative link between correlated data...especially if it is poorly correlated.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Some of the things you list are in fact illegal, if rarely enforced (such as playing excessively loud music in your car). But that's largely irrelevant.
Most of the things you list, unlike smoking, do not cause physical discomfort (like coughing and irritated eyes). This puts it in a class beyond mere annoyance and into causing deleterious physical effects to people.
There are things that annoy and things that cause pain to people. Those things in the latter category are not your right. Your right to swing your fist (or puff your smoke) ends at my face.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I haven't seen any broadcast engineers (who often spend days at a time at multi-megawatt sites -- granted on different frequency bands, but a MUCH higher RF output, hundreds if not thousands of orders of magnitude higher than anything a cell phone user puts themselves through -- dropping dead of cancer.
Same for the generation of microwave engineers who worked on the AT&T "Long Lines" networks and built a little company once known as MCI (Microwave Communications, Inc.), now Verizon Business...
Or the generation of cell site TECHS who work on the much higher gain and higher power cellular site transmitters...
All of those folks are at MUCH higher risk from RF energy than a typical cell phone user, and there's NO statistical evidence that they're adversely affected.
Anecdotally, I do know one broadcast engineer who says he never used birth control during his time in broadcast, and only started having kids naturally with his wife after he left the business. But I also personally know another (Catholic) RF engineer who has six or seven (I lost count) kids, and he's always worked in the industry.
So... whatever. The point is... there's people (large numbers of them) that could be used for studies of how cellular phone type RF frequencies at high power levels might be dangerous out there... and none of that demographic are dropping like flies.
So your concerns are likely quite unfounded.
Do I believe that different people are differently affected by RF? Yes. Do we fully understand all of the effects of RF? No. But is the risk significantly higher for cancer or anything else for the flea-power cellular microwave frequencies? No.
+++OK ATH