Slashdot Mirror
Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer
mclearn sends in news of "a very large, 30-year study of just about everyone in Scandinavia" that shows no link between mobile phone use and brain tumors. "Even though mobile telephone use soared in the 1990s and afterward, brain tumors did not become any more common during this time, the researchers reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Some activist groups and a few researchers have raised concerns about a link between mobile phones and several kinds of cancer, including brain tumors, although years of research have failed to establish a connection. ... 'From 1974 to 2003, the incidence rate of glioma (a type of brain tumor) increased by 0.5 per cent per year among men and by 0.2 per cent per year among women,' they wrote. Overall, there was no significant pattern."
Are there any levels/frequencies of RF that are known to increase cancer rates? Or could I live on top of a radio tower and do just fine?
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Talking on cellphones in restaurants was proven to increase your douchebagginess by %100
So what if it did? Would anyone really stop using cell phones? I suspect it's kind of like knowing that the odds are pretty good that sometime in your lifetime, you'll have an automobile accident. It might even be fatal. Are you going to stop driving?
Everything is a risk. It all comes down to judging how much of a risk something is versus what you gain from taking that risk. Even if using cell phones increases your risk of brain cancer, it must be by some amount that is so minuscule that it's practically non-existent, witnessed by the fact that 95% of our population isn't walking around with brain cancer.
I like those odds.
Glioma != "brain tumors". There are many other forms of brain tumors which this study does not cover. The story should be "No link between glioma and cell phone usage found."
Strictly speaking, yes, this is true. For practical purposes, however, the results are still encouraging. You can be confident that, in today's world, despite the alleged dangers of cell phones, you are no more at risk of brain cancer than your parents were.
Yeah, but what about second-hand cell phone usage? If the person in the room with you or in the car with you is using a cell phone, does it increase your chance of brain tumors?
OK, OK, I'm not totally serious with this (it's more a riff on the whole second-hand smoke issue), but still...
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
It's people buying into the sensationalism that the media perpetuates around anything vaguely related to human healthcare. Dumbing everything down to the level of the stupidest person consuming the news results in demeaning everyone else.
There is so much potential for online news. They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science. I wish I would hear about p-values and numbers in scientific notation! I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units. I want reporters to link to the original scientific paper they are writing a piece about or what's better: ask for and pressure scientists into being able to distribute the paper itself.
I want to read news with an Atom feed aggregator, where I find the paper the article refers to as a directly downloadable content.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
You can't control "all other variables." Otherwise you could prove a negative. It's impossible to prove that cell phones don't cause cancer, but you can say that a large number of people have been using them for the last thirty years with no apparent increase in cancer cases, so it's extremely unlikely that cell phones are responsible for cancer. Especially when their use has skyrocketed and cancer cases have not.
So what this is saying is essentially there is no evidence for cell phones causing cancer. If you want to argue that they do, you'd have to come up with a pretty strong argument.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
So I can take this tin foil hat off of my head now? It makes it hard to hear the people on the other end.
The widespread availability of tomography for one thing, which could have been expected to account for a higher detection rate of tumors, even in the absence of Chernobyl fallout and powerful EM emitters glued to everyone's ear.
This story needs the "duh" tag. Radio frequency has been around much longer than cell phones. If RF caused cancer, we would have known it long before the advent of cell phones.
Or it could be that the strength of the signal has changed. Or that the actual composition of the signal has changed. There are so many variables that I do not see any valid connection being made.
Seriously? If you have several variables (as you claim) and observe no meaningful changes in the brain cancer rate it leaves you with the following outcomes:
1. Some radio waves DO cause cancer, but some radio waves also decrease it at the exact same rate, and those counteracting radio waves interacted just enough to cause the results of the study to indicate that the original waves which may or may not have been causing cancer to be cancelled out at just the right times.
2. Radio Waves do cause cancer, but something new introduced at exactly the same time is counteracting that. This new 'thing' must have occured and been adopted at the same rate as cell phones.
3. Radio Waves do not cause brain cancer.
I'll save you the trouble of trying to rationalize 1 and 2. Just pick 3.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
I'll save you the trouble of trying to rationalize 1 and 2. Just pick 3.
I'm William of Ockham, and I approve of this message.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
I'm sick and tired of "Experts" telling me how to do things. When you spend your whole life studying one thing, you end up knowing nothing. Common sense is all you need.
Now I'm off to read the horoscope to see if I should buy a lottery ticket.
This study shows Scandinavians don't get any increased tumors. Don't try to pass that off as evidence that Mericans won't. Haven't you heard all the complaints -- do you think people are crazy?
The hard white part that surrounds the soft inner parts is bad. It should be removed before eating.
I think the vast majority of people would have actually no problem understanding news that is expressed not in Libraries of Congress, but in proper SI units.
I'm blowing an earlier moderation to a post so I can comment on this. I think that perhaps you overestimate your fellow members of society. The tolerance of most people for anything even remotely resembling detail is pretty low. You can test this by trying to have a discussion with family/friends/people on the bus about why firewalls are important or why running everything as root/admin may not make for the most secure model. Eyes will glaze over. Quickly.
They could be using, omg, hyperlinks to connect the topic to the relevant terms and field of science.
Here's the thing: There is no they. "They" is really us. "We" could be doing any of this. But the fact is, our mainstream culture ISN'T that way because for the most part, WE aren't that way. In the meantime, there is a wealth of information out there for us outliers to FIND that information. Forums like slashdot where you CAN find the relevant terms, links to the paper, etc.
There is sensationalism because sensationalism sells. Sensationalism sells because that is what people WANT. They vote what they want with their wallets and their eyeballs. The "vast majority of people" want exactly what they are getting and the market delivers it to them.
I would have to say that explosives are the most abused technology in all of history.
Lots of things changed between 1974 and 2003. It could be that cell phones do increase the chance of brain cancer, but these other factors counteract it.
Not bloody likely. Not only would these mysterious "other factors" have had to coincidentally lowered brain cancer rate to the same degree cell phone usage presumably increased it, but it would have had to do it at the exact same time. This theory gets cut away by Occam's Razor pretty early.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Cell Phones Don't Increase Chances of Brain Cancer on Friday December 04, @09:23AM
That isn't a very good title. The article doesn't state that scell phones don't increase chances of brain cancer. It just says there is no scientific link. These are two very different things.
A scientific journal artical would be very unlikely to state that cell phones don't increase the chances of brain cancer. It would be more likely to say something like.. It was determined with reasonable probability that there is no link between cell phone usage and glioma and meningioma.
Credible scientific articles don't often , if ever, come right out and say they have proven anything. When other sources get ahold of it, they make the jump from "we have determined with reasonable probability" to Science has prooven!
Doctors do Massage in Longview WA now, who knew?
That may be... back in 2003. As far as I know, the ubiquity of the device has increased substantially since the beginning of the decade. Back at the start of the decade, it was still a strange thought to consider giving up your land-line and keep only a cell-phone. Since then, we've seen the introduction of cell phones tailored specifically to children and the ubiquity of the devices permiating most parts of our society and culture.
This is a "30 year study" that takes into account about 10 years of actual device use by the common population, of which only the tail end showed true ubiquity.
I'm not saying they are wrong, I'm just saying there may not be enough data yet.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
Who the f*k used cells 30 years ago?! Also, there is no constant mass to measure as the amount of cell owners 10 years ago is far from the one now, so this is pure faked corporatism support,
OK, try to wrap your little brain around this: there is no statistically significant increase in brain cancer from 1974 (when there were no cell phones) to 2003 (when there were a shitload). If brain cancer didn't change, but cell phone usage went from 0 to "a whole bunch", the conclusion is that cell phones don't cause brain cancer.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
in a 29 year period rates have gone up:
14.5% for males.
5.8% for females.
And this isn't significant how? I'd say a steady yearly increase like that has to have SOME factor somewhere worth discovering - even if it may not be cell phones specifically.
As a loyal slashdotter, I refuse to even hover over the link of TFA, but my absolutely non-educated guess is that although cell phones may not have been around for 30 years (if it weighs over 10 kgs, it's NOT a cell phone in my book), they studied the past 30 years to get a baseline. First 10 years or so as a baseline of how the population was doing in a pre-cellphone era, then 20 years of actual usage.
PS: for those still stuck in non-metric systems, 10 kgs is like a kadzillion ounces.
If I've told you once, I've told you a million times: Stop exaggerating!
so isn't _something_ causing them ?
Absolute statements are never true
You can prove a negative. http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articles/proveanegative.html
This is an outdated study.
The 1974 to 2003 period was dominated by the old analog 800-850 Mhz AMP's tech.
Modern CDMA, GSM tech is of W2K vintage.
Same goes for higher frequencies being used, now 1.6 to 2.2Ghz..
Likewise for portable phones.. 1.7/46/49Mhz.. 900Mhz, newer 2.4Ghz, 5.4Ghz.
Each step up in frequency increases the dV across brain tissue by a cubed function.
I.E. More energy absorbed in a smaller volume(HALF WAVELENGTH).
Cell phones also adjust their output power based on received signal strength.
Longer wave AMP's frequencies had a lot more penetrating power/reduced absorption which reduces transmission power. The converse is true for higher frequencies and absorption.
Modern cell phones reduced form factor has also increased exposure.
Smaller/tiny radiating surface centered around ear, verses old bag phones with separate phone style handsets.
Likewise, per minute costs have dropped, thus increasing usage and individual exposure several fold.
Then there is nature of organically catalyzed reactions where tiny amounts of energy are used to shift reaction equilibrium's. Even small delta V potentials can affect outcomes..
Lot's of huge issues not addressed by this outdated/invalid study.
This is a study from Scandinavia, not from the technologically backwards US.
I would bet money that you could not tell, in a double-blind test, whether or not there is a 2.4GHz transmitter near you. I think you are self-deluded.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
I was so sensitive that, if someone else were turning the Wifi on and off, I could be in a different room in the house and still tell when it was on.
That's rather hard to believe. Three different studies found people unable to make the distinction (see below).
I do believe Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity exists, though, in the sense that the complaints are real.
[1] Regel, Sabine; Sonja Negovetic, Martin Roosli, Veronica Berdinas, Jurgen Schuderer, Anke Huss, Urs Lott, Niels Kuster, and Peter Achermann (August 2006). UMTS base station-like exposure, well-being, and cognitive performance. Environ Health Perspect 114 (8): 1270–5. PMID 16882538. PMC 1552030.
[2] Rubin, James; G Hahn, BS Everitt, AJ Clear, Simon Wessely (2006). Within-participants, double-blind, randomised provocation study. British Medical Journal 332: 886–889. doi:10.1136/bmj.38765.519850.55
[3] Wilen, J; A Johansson, N Kalezic, E Lyskov, M Sandstrom (April 2006). "Psychophysiological tests and provocation of subjects with mobile phone related symptoms". Bioelectromagnetics 27 (3): 204–14. doi:10.1002/bem.20195. PMID 16304699
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ymiunmtqmyz/Non-Ionizing%20Radiation.ppt Please view that PowerPoint presentation. I have done much research into this specific topic and came to realize that much of the research that has actually been PUBLISHED on the subject finding little to no ill health effects have been funded mainly by companies holding a stake in wireless technologies.
In WWII,
[apocryphal stories were told of]
many shipboard radar operators were permanently sterilized by RF leakage. Don't think of it as radio waves, think of it as radiation.
No!
Think of it as heat.
The tissue burn is almost the same.
No, it's not. Radiation damages you even though you don't feel it and it doesn't burn. Microwaves heat things up, but are not ionizing. In terms of damage, they are a heat source-- they can damage because they heat you up, but they most particularly do not damage the way radiation does.
(by the way, people in the US usually think of the word "radiation" as meaning "ionizing radiation", which microwaves aren't. I'm assuming you meant it this way.)
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
NMT dominated the 80's (in fact, it was the biggest cellular network in the world back then...) and the beginning of the 90's there. Introduced almost three decades ago. Rapidly lost relevance with the large scale introduction of GSM networks in the mid 90's (which begun in 91 in Scandinavia BTW)
And you dismiss the most important thing - that the study didn't look at the specific hypothetical mechanisms in detail, just at the prevalence of cancer in relation to cellphones adoption.
It found NOTHING. Which is especially significant given partially sensibly sounding "complications" in the latter part of your post.
One that hath name thou can not otter