Slashdot Mirror
Cellphone Radiation May Protect Brain From Alzheimers
We've discussed cellphones and cancer many times. Here's a new angle: reader olddotter sends in a Reuters article suggesting that cellphone radiation may protect the brain from Alzheimer's disease. "At the end of that time, they found cellphone exposure erased a build-up of beta amyloid, a protein that serves as a hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. The Alzheimer's mice showed improvement and had reversal of their brain pathology..."
This proves that cellphone radiation actually interacts with matter in the brain... which is something to be afraid of, in my opinion.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
No correlation to cancer? That's not what studies are showing. I've also read that cell phones sitting in pockets have been connected to reduced sperm count.
Certainly, given the widespread use of mobile phones and their clear value to us, it would be quite earth-shattering to discover a clear and specific link between phones and cancer. However, at this point I've say the threat is likely quite minimal with moderate use. But mobile phones haven't been around nearly long enough for us to be able to gauge their effects on us. Wait until this generation starts aging; then we'll have a better indication of whether or not cell phones are a danger or not.
You seem fairly eager to believe one study over another simply because that one shows a positive side-effect. There's no reason why one study should be inherently more valid than the other, especially since many of these other studies have been conducted directly on humans.
The argument, as I understand it, is that cancer is caused by mutated DNA, and DNA cannot be mutated by radiation that's too weak to break chemical bonds. Since cell phone radiation doesn't break bonds, it doesn't cause cancer. If Alzheimer's is caused by something other than mutated DNA, the argument doesn't apply.
Lost: one sig, witty, 120 chars, sentimental value. Reward offered.
Can someone email me a copy of the actual paper? I can't find it on the researcher's site.
Controlled according to what criteria? Did he account for possible exposure to agricultural carcinogens among rural users? Inferior access to health care there? Also, self-reported studies are inherently inaccurate: it'd be far better to go by reliable numbers involving actual cell phone usage records.
The researcher also mentioned that Israelis are particular heavy users of cell phones, implying that might be one reason he was able to produce results where others have failed. What about other reasons Israelis might be different, such as exposure to constant warfare, or dust from the Negev?
We shouldn't jump the gun on this study:
In short, given that cell phones are utterly important to our lives today, I'm going to have to see a lot more independent evidence before I even begin to suspect that they're actually dangerous.
Why would they cause cancer (any more than wifi/general EM radiation)? It's not ionising radiation as far as i know and short bursts of exposure to any sort of radiation is fine - people live in Chernobyl without any side effects and the background radiation level there is substantially above the norm.
Certainly this is an interesting study, but they chose a relatively small sample size and a pretty obscure cancer. Interestingly it IS NOT brain cancer, they state a 50% increased chance of salivary gland cancer (50%). Now, correct me if i'm wrong, but this is a case of overblown statistics and media hype. Parotid cancer is relatively rare, in 2002/2003 in England there were around 650 cases. A 50% increase is.. oh, right.. only 900 odd cases. What am I getting at? Double a small number and you get a small number. Ok, so you increase your risk of cancer which is bad, but it's a pretty rare form of cancer and your chance doesn't really go up that much. Say i had a 5% chance of mouth cancer and using my phone bumps it up to 7.5%, should I be worried? Well perhaps i'd cut back a bit, but i wouldn't lose any sleep over it.
Now compare this to Lung cancer due to smoking. 90% of all lung cancer cases are attributable to smoke inhalation and a 23-fold increase. That is a fundamentally different statistic, 23-fold is 2300% and is definitely something to worry about. It's not a totally accurate conversion, but suffice to say 23 times more likely is much worse than an increase of 3 odd percent.
If TFA you linked had said that there is 10 times the risk i'd be listening, but as it stands it's just over enthusiastic reporting.
Do you understand the difference between EM radiation and particle radiation? Unfortunately the difference between the "radiation" fallout from nuclear weapons and disasters and the "radiation" from cell phones is lost on the media. Particle radiation is high-energy particles of matter, e.g. alpha particles, that smash into atoms and molecules and cause damage at the molecular level to your DNA.
EM radiation is pure emitted energy. Light is EM radiation. Heat is EM radiation. Microwaves and radio signals are EM radiation. The wavelength of cell phone radiation is so long (between 10 and 30 cm) that it is literally impossible for it to interact with single molecules and cause damage to your DNA. However, at that wavelength it can still transfer heat, like a microwave oven.
The notion that cell phone radiation causes cancer directly, as in through genetic damage, is ludicrous. It would only be able to cause cancer by causing localized heating of parts of your brain which may set into effect a cascade of effects that may manifest as cancer. However, I think this is unlikely.
As for sperm counts, I think carrying a cell phone in your pocket is about bad for your sperm count as would be carrying around one of those chemical warm packets or wearing tighter underwear--the extra heat is the only culprit.
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.