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!"
Sure, cell phone use might give you cancer, but on the bright side there are hundreds of other compounds just in the air in Pittsburgh that will give you cancer much quicker, so there's really no need for concern.
Trying to come up with a justification for seeking some grant money?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Use a wireless headset and keep the phone in your front pocket. The poor mans vasectomy.
I carry around my landline and have a huge roll of wire. It's worked for me so #$FDaf#$# NO CARRIER
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a cell phone transmitter (having to reach from the phone to the tower) is on the order of one watt, while your Bluetooth headset (having to reach only a few feet) is on the order of one milliwatt.
Which would you rather have up to your head?
Don't just shut up and drive. Just shut up. And while you're at it - get off my lawn.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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
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
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.
Most cell phones are less than 1/2 watt. Pretty impressive, if you consider the coverage cell networks have. The standard powerlevels for Bluetooth are:
100 milliwatt
2.5 milliwatt
1 milliwatt
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.
Most phones support external antenna hookups. Just start taking the rubber piece off by the antenna stub that is round, about the size of the O on the keyboard.
There are plenty of snake oil salesmen ready to steal your money with "shielding."
http://www.cellphonedefense.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5073
Same category as this crap:
http://www.apexcellular.com/antennas.htm
The wireless headset is probably a much lower power transmitter than the one in the phone.
-mkb
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.
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.
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).
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.
Photons of EM waves at 900MHz have tiny energy compared to bonding energy of molecules and compared to ionization energy of atoms. Radio waves simply can't cause chemical changes in the human body.
Amount of heat absorbed (cell phones emit ~1-2W, only small fraction is absorbed) is also insignificant compared to the amounts human body produces. I think statistical fluke in their data is most likely reason for their conclusion.
"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
HA. This'll never happen for cellphones. If smoking is still legal in public, it'll NEVER fly for cell phone use, since there *IS* absolute proof showing the cause of second hand smoke...
"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.
Average power is lower, but peak is 2W, lowest power is 20mW. The handset varies its output power depending on how it's being received by the base station. In a bad location, the base station would command the handset to increase power.
http://www.techmind.org/gsm/
"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
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?!
I think you mean non-ionizing, don't you? microwaves are non-ionizing. UV, x-rays, etc. are ionizing.
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
.
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]
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").
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 ?).
Would you like to hear some more recent studies? No? Too bad.
A study examining the method by which SHS triggers allergy attacks.
Demonstration of how SHS promotes the growth of existing lung cancers.
How SHS impedes the ability of fibrolasts to respond to a wound.
The last one in particular contains a great number of references by which you can better educate yourself. Penn & Teller can go to hell for all I care; the data is out there for people who don't get all their scientific information from comedians.
Try spending 5 minutes on scholar.google.com before blathering about "no studies" and "no research."
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").