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 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.
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.
While you aren't wrong, you have to recognize that this sentence works just as well if you replace "cell phone" with "breakfast cereal" or "gym sock".
Before you talk about a cover up, you need to find a piece of evidence that shows there is actually a risk in the first place. The tobacco companies fought against mounds of data showing that cigarettes are dangerous, but in this case there is no mound of evidence that is being denied.
If medically and statistically valid studies show an elevated cancer risk of cell phone use, the cell phone companies will certainly lie about it. So what? They aren't the only source of information in the world.
"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?
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.
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.
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).
Except that our current understanding of biology gives no physical mechanism through which non-ionizing microwave wavelength radiation can damage DNA to cause cancer.
Maybe that understanding will change at some point in the future - biology and genetics have been developing quickly in recent decades, but in the mean time we have no reason to be worried, compared to all the other risks we take in a day.
It's anti-science to go to fear-mongering due to ignorance simply because there's a technology involved. That's not just being cautious, that's being reckless in a non-conventional direction.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.