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..."

Comments

Mice

[maxume]

Maybe the mice that were talking on cell phones had a richer mental life, staving off the disease for reasons other than the radiation.

Re:Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you! Thank you!

Finally, somebody has been able to point out that "correlation does not imply causation" without using that goddamn phrase.

Re:Mice

[docneuro]

Maybe the mice that were talking on cell phones had a richer mental life, staving off the disease for reasons other than the radiation.

Nah. There was less amyloid because the mice unfortunately crashed their cars while talking on the cell phone and just died young.

Nothing to see here... move along.

Re:Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think you wanted to say "Correlation does not equal causation"

Correlation often *implies* causation, especially in well designed and executed scientific studies that eliminate most other possible causes. Of course, implying it does not prove it - that is much harder.

Re:Mice

[GargamelSpaceman]

Although in this case, they actually proved causation.

Re:Mice

[Darkness404]

...Except this experiment used mice and does more or less prove causation.....

Re:Mice

[SEWilco]

Maybe the mice that were talking on cell phones had a richer mental life, staving off the disease for reasons other than the radiation.

I don't know how much richer is thinking "Why does this box make noises like another mouse?"
And they'd have a less rich mental life if they're using GPS to find their cheese in the maze.

Re:Mice

[supernova_hq]

That's right. Between teh radiation, driving distractions and lowered mental state, they just aren't living long enough to DEVELOP alzheimers!

Re:Mice

[icebike]

That remains to be seen.

When repeated in other labs by different researchers we can begin to talk of "proof".

Choice to Make

[arthurpaliden]

So I can not use a cell phone and may get alzheimers or I can use a cell phone and not get alzheimers but could get brain cancer ...... time to flip a coin.

Re:Choice to Make

[lorenlal]

Maybe we've got it all wrong... Can alzheimers be the cure for cancer?

Re:Choice to Make

[arthurpaliden]

I don't remember......

Re:Choice to Make

[Anonymous Coward]

Can alzheimers be the cure for cancer?

That's not far off being true.

http://www.healthcentral.com/alzheimers/news-456179-98.html

Re:Choice to Make

[PitaBred]

...there's no correlation of cell phones to brain cancer. What coin flipping is necessary? Cell phones are not actually known to cause any health problems by any valid study, and this research strongly suggests that they might help with Alzheimer's. Seems like a pretty good bet to me.

Re:Choice to Make

[TooMuchToDo]

On a long enough timeline, the rate of survival always drops to zero. Stop worrying so much.

Re:Choice to Make

[MaWeiTao]

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.

Re:Choice to Make

[dr2chase]

If you can remember how to use it.

I'm thinking, cell phones good, Tesla coils better?

Re:Choice to Make

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who isn't too concerned about sperm count?... I celebrate the arrival of my girlfriends monthly cycle, because protection isn't a guarantee... I've considered surgical protection, which would at least be reversible. While I can't really see myself wanting kids in the future, it's possibly I could change my mind and be disappointed.

Also, as with tobacco, if it doesn't cause cancer in more than 50% of users, I'm less inclined to believe any study showing a correlation.

Re:Choice to Make

[QuoteMstr]

Can someone email me a copy of the actual paper? I can't find it on the researcher's site.

The study's subjects were asked to detail their cell phone use patterns in terms of how frequently they used one, and the average length of calls. They were compared to a sample of about 1,300 healthy control subjects.

The study also found an increased risk of cancer for heavy users who lived in rural areas. Due to fewer antennas, cell phones in rural areas need to emit more radiation to communicate effectively.

Sadetzki predicts that, over time, the greatest effects will be found in heavy users and children.

While anecdotal evidence has been substantial, the consistency of the results of this study support an association between cell phone use and these tumors. The risks have been hard to prove, mainly due to the long latency period involved in cancer development, explains Sadetzki.

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:

• Many researchers have tried to find correlations between cell phone use and cancer. He's the only one who's had any success. Even the best-designed studies have a chance of producing Type I and Type II errors (false positives and false negatives). With enough studies, you'll eventually find a spurious result. See publication bias.
• Studies that purport to show results when many other have failed are suspect for other reasons too.
• Going by the article, the study does not seem very well-controlled

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.

Re:Choice to Make

[QuoteMstr]

This opposition to cell phones is part of a much larger Luddite movement today. From cell phones, to nuclear power, to vaccination, to practically any other field of science, we're seeing large numbers of people, honestly or not, yearn to return to a supposedly simpler, less mechanized time. The desire has been around as long as technology has, but the recent greatly-accelerated pace of progress has exacerbated the problem.

Unfortunately, we'll be stuck with these people until they die. It's "common sense" for them to opposite scary new devices with atoms and wavelengths and things, and "common sense" is something acquired early in childhood and immutable thereafter. The new generation of people growing up with these things will be much less susceptible to anti-technological fear mongering.

Re:Choice to Make

[Whiternoise]

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.

Re:Choice to Make

[memnock]

i wonder about a bigger question: does having a cell phone next to your head for a couple of hours per day affect your health? between studies saying that it does/not cause cancer and now this about effect on Alzheimer's, is it safe to say that having a phone to your head for X hours/day has some kind of effect? or have people accepted the fact that cells will somehow affect the brain or head, just not sure what the effect is?

Re:Choice to Make

[BigSlowTarget]

Not to mention a Danish study covering over 400k people over periods of up to 12 years that showed no correlation at solid confidence intervals.

http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/98/23/1707

Re:Choice to Make

[Bigjeff5]

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.

Except this study is directly studying the problem by blasting rats with cell phone radiation and studying the effects. The study you cited was nothing more than a survey conducted on Israelis with tumors in their salivary gland. There is a HUGE difference.

The best you'll ever be able to claim with a survey is correlation, you cannot prove causation that way. However, you CAN prove causation with controlled experiments on rats, a-la TFA.

Again, one study is a group actually experimenting on rats, the other is a group surveying cancer patients. Which is more valuable and more scientific should be abundantly clear.

Re:Choice to Make

[swinefc]

Until now, I believed as you do... "Cell phones are not actually known to cause any health problems". Low level RF is already in our natural habitat.

Unfortunately, this article is worrisome, because the study showed a positive effect. The problem is that it had any affect at all. If cell phone radiation can affect Alzheimer's, then cell phone radiation has an affect, positive or negative is just a modifier.

Re:Choice to Make

[ozbird]

Cancer is the cure for Alzheimers - the tumour kills you before you can develop it.

In other news, mice exposed to mobile phone radiation were found to have a lower IQs and squeak unnecessarily loudly about inane topics.

Re:Choice to Make

[Belial6]

One of my favorites was when I was talking to a woman at a party once, and she insisted that we should not be using technology for farming. I had to ask..."So, we shouldn't use plows? Or even a sturdy stick to dig up the ground?" Apparently she had this idea that there were huge hydroponic farms growing our food, and that that was bad. She also clearly didn't know whet the word "technology" means.

Re:Choice to Make

[diablovision]

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.

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.

Re:Choice to Make

[Anonymous Coward]

That is entirely wrong. Alzheimers isn't the dissolving of brain tissue but growth of plaques, or at least correlated to it. Your analogy is not an oversimplification, but just a completely wrong description of what is happening. In fact, who is to say that the abnormal conditions presented by so much growth doesn't increase the likelihood of cancer and people just die too soon for it to be statistically signifigant. Please do not ever attempt to describe this disease again as you are not only misleading, but apparently compelling enough for an insightful mod.

Of course it must be true

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The mice have been running the experiment to check the safety of cellphones for mice use by making the human beings to use them for a long time. It is quite well known and well documented actually.

Hello, Mickey?

[mcgrew]

The results were a major surprise and open the possibility of developing a noninvasive, drug-free treatment for Alzheimer's, said lead author Gary Arendash of the University of South Florida.

He said he had expected cell phone exposure to increase the effects of dementia.

This is how science is SUPPOSED to work! But don't get your hopes up...

Many treatments that have shown promise in mice have had little effect on humans.

I wonder if this affects the non-Alzheimer's "senior moments" as my mother calls them? I wish they'd had cell phones when I was young! Now where'd I put that damned phone???

Fixing Forgetfull Grandma...

[jameskojiro]

Duct Tape, check
Cell phones, check

So we should go buy a bunch of those pre-paid cell phones and duct tape them to grandma's head and hope to heck her memory gets better.

Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma...

[drater]

My grandmother really has Alzheimer's, you insensitive clod!

Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma...

[eln]

I can send you some duct tape if you'd like...

scary

[StripedCow]

This proves that cellphone radiation actually interacts with matter in the brain... which is something to be afraid of, in my opinion.

Re:scary

[sunking2]

Bingo. So much for the argument that the energy is non-ionizing thus cell phones are safe. Assuming this study is factual.

Re:scary

[dr2chase]

Yes, but. Cellphone radiation (.85-1.9Ghz) does not penetrate that far into your body, just as microwave radiation (2.45Ghz) does not penetrate that far into a potato.

Studies show that mouse heads are much smaller than human heads, therefore they are getting a much larger dose to their brain, for a given external exposure.

Re:scary

[mcmonkey]

Studies show that mouse heads are much smaller than human heads

[Citation needed]

Re:scary

[Anonymous Coward]

We've have known for years that non-ionizing radiation can affect biochemical processes (e.g., enzyme kinetics), and can have physiological effects (e.g., suppression of melatonin production, possibly via the same mechanism).

I think sometimes people with physics or engineering backgrounds make the assumption that we understand all the rules and therefore can say with authority "X can't happen". That's rarely true. Being unable to explain a phenomenon may be cause for dismissing it as spurious in some fields, where the rules are understood well enough to distinguish between the improbable and impossible, but in biology that's a dangerous assumption to make. I tend to operate with the reverse of Sherlock Holmes' rule, i.e., if you eliminate the suitably improbable, whatever is left, no matter how impossible, is probably true.

Re:scary

[steelfood]

Yeah, when I went to Disney, those mouse heads were huge!

How's that for anecdotal evidence?

Re:scary

[Fnkmaster]

From Wikipedia:

A common misconception is that microwave ovens cook food from the "inside out". In reality, microwaves are absorbed in the outer layers of food in a manner somewhat similar to heat from other methods. The misconception arises because microwaves penetrate dry non-conductive substances at the surfaces of many common foods, and thus often induce initial heat more deeply than other methods. Depending on water content, the depth of initial heat deposition may be several centimetres or more with microwave ovens, in contrast to broiling (infrared) or convection heating, which deposit heat thinly at the food surface. Penetration depth of microwaves is dependent on food composition and the frequency, with lower microwave frequencies (longer wavelengths) penetrating better.

Also, very interesting article in that I've read many times before that microwaves operate at a resonant frequency of water molecules. Turns out that's bullshit. They heat by dielectric heating, and anything with a high dipole moment (such as water) will be heated - but other molecule types will experience some heating as well, depending on how polar they are. See the Wikipedia article for more info.

Easily explained

[sjonke]

Most people who die at 50 didn't have alzheimers.

Re:Easily explained

[gknoy]

That's an interesting point. As we conquer the lower hanging medical fruit, and prevent the things that used to kill people younger (disease, malnutrition, gum disease, accidents etc), a higher proportion of the people that DO die will be dying because of old age, or of diseases which only tend to affect older people.

If you give a mouse a cell phone,

[MrEricSir]

He's going to ask for a Bluetooth headset.

Re:Now try keeping the mice warm

[reverseengineer]

Here is the abstract, but there isn't much mentioned in the abstract beyond what's covered in the press releases.

Quick!

[peacefinder]

Everyone mail their old cell phones to Sir Terry Pratchett, stat!

A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiation

[carlhaagen]

In many related discussions here on /., oh so many readers have, in various ways, blatantly slandered the idea that EM radiation in the microwave spectrum also has a directly, altering effect on tissue and matter in general - to whatever the extent may be. So, what's your stance now? I have the idea that this lot refused to believe this when it was in the context of f.e. "cellphones being bad for you", but just might be open the idea now that some "good" effect is proven from the EMR. If that's the case, why are these people changing their minds all of the sudden? Why accept this, but not the original arguments regarding microwave radiation?

Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati

[Attila Dimedici]

Why accept this, but not the original arguments regarding microwave radiation?

Because this is based on a scientific, reproducible study that shows an actual effect, whereas, the claims that there were negative effects were contradicted by all of the scientific, reproducible experiments that were run to test them.

Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati

[boojum.cat]

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.

Easy call

[Locke2005]

Alzheimers! I'd love to be able to hide my own Easter eggs, and every time you make love to your wife, it feels like a whole new experience! Plus, you can laugh at the same old jokes several times (like the ones my father tells over and over and over again!) Yep, Alzheimers is definitely the way to go! Uh... what was the question again?

Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati

[Xeno man]

That's easy. After years of studies and studies on mice and on people, there has been no consensus. Some studies say they do, others say they don't. Some say they have no frigging clue. Given that the theory of "cell phones cause cancer" is popular only through fear of the invisible and unknown forces by the ignorant masses, a slightly more intelligent group of people who visit /. choose to dismiss said theories because they choose to not be afraid of every rumor they hear of. I bet most people here didn't believe the video of the cell phones popping a single kernel of pop corn. Well maybe some did but I know I didn't. Now about this new study, the general response has been either to make jokes or basically said, "That is interesting, I look forward to hearing more about it later." I haven't seen any posts of people shouting out "Cell phones are good for you!" In the future there will be more studies, maybe some on people, where we will get a clearer picture. If the results are just a muddy as cancer studies then we will dismiss the healing power of cell phones just as easily.

Oh Yes!

[Anonymous Coward]

In your face Amish!!

Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati

[mcgrew]

Why accept this, but not the original arguments regarding microwave radiation?

Because there isn't any evidence that cellphone use is harmful. Conjecture is useless until tested.

Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati

[yoma666]

Have you read up on the actual research that has been done? Check this for starters. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da2_1186974243 Bottom line is that cells/tissues are indeed influenced by EM radiation at cellphone or wifi frequencies. And seemingly the biggest problem compared to other EM-radiation is that your body simply cannot recognise the "new kinds" of radiation it's exposed to. This can turn out bad, but might also turn out good. The only thing that will prove wether we're fucking up or not is simply time. Besides that there are of course a gazillion other factors that are known to be bad for your cells/tissues that are spread out throughout your home/environment.

Ironic

[LordKronos]

So, cell phones protect from alzheimers? The condition that (among other effects) causes people to forget things ? I find that quite ironic, considering that it seems 99% of people forget how to drive when they're on one.

P.S. At least I think that's irony. Every time I think I've got it down, someone shows me a new rule for what is or isn't irony. My apologies to the grammar Nazis in advance if I have it wrong.

Re:Ironic

[Cassander]

P.S. At least I think that's irony. Every time I think I've got it down, someone shows me a new rule for what is or isn't irony. My apologies to the grammar Nazis in advance if I have it wrong.

As a recovering former grammar nazi, I would just like to say:

FUCK THE DICTIONARY!

Thanks to popular (mis)use, ironic now has multiple definitions, irregardless of what the dictionary might say.

Yeah grammar nazis, I just said "irregardless". Based on common usage, it is simply a synonym for "regardless". It's here to stay, you might as well get used to it. And I put periods outside of quotation marks and parentheses when it makes logical sense to do so (blame math/programming for that one if you must have a scapegoat). And cellphone is one word. And I can start a sentence with "and" if I want to. :P

Really, as long as communication occurs, what's the big deal? Why religiously stick to arbitrary rules of grammar/spelling/usage? Webster is not the final authority on what is or isn't valid english communication. (Actual real-world usage is.) Our language is constantly evolving, why can't you evolve along with it?

Re:Ironic

[YourExperiment]

By yr 0wn l0g1c, praps 1 shud p0st l13k th15 - lulz!!

Then again, perhaps I should stick to using proper spelling and grammar. That way it will be easy for you to work out what I mean.

Those of us who sometimes feel compelled to point out errors are only doing so because we love our language. I have no objection whatsoever to the constant evolution of language, but aberrations such as "irregardless" make me wince. When a word is used to mean the exact opposite of what it says, this can only cause confusion. I have to live with people using it, but I certainly don't have to like it.

Re:Ironic

[Cassander]

The problem is there is no such thing as "proper spelling and grammar". By who's authority is it "proper"? The dictionary can't even produce self-consistency, let alone some sort of overall fundamental logical sense.

Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with your string of l33t-speak (or text-speak as the kids are calling it now) as long as its meaning is unambiguous.

If "irregardless" makes you wince, how do you feel about flammable/inflammable? Also, will "irregardless" suddenly be acceptable ~5-10 years from now when it makes its way into an "official" printed dictionary like Webster's? Irregardless doesn't cause confusion, because the only people that don't understand its definition (synonym for "regardless", despite apparent root structure) are grammar nazis who refuse to learn.

Evolution is, by definition, made of aberrations.

As I said in my original post, I am a recovering former grammar nazi. I understand, to some extent, where you are coming from. They key realization for me was that an "error" isn't really an "error" unless it actually prevents communication from occurring.

I love my language too. "If you love something, set it free." If you dig in your heels and stick to "proper" spelling and grammar, you will rapidly find yourself unable to communicate with the rest of us.

Re:Ironic

[YourExperiment]

Fundamentally, I see nothing wrong with your string of l33t-speak (or text-speak as the kids are calling it now) as long as its meaning is unambiguous.

I see nothing fundamentally wrong with it either, providing it's used in a context where it's understood and therefore accepted. Someone texting their friends using it is fair enough (using "proper" language might even be frowned upon by one's peers). Using it on your resumé just means you're unlikely to get a job.

You could spell every other word in your post wrong, and I would probably still understand it, but it might take me rather longer and my opinion of you would be consequentially lower. If it was too annoying, I might not even bother to read it.

If "irregardless" makes you wince, how do you feel about flammable/inflammable?

It's a shame if someone feels the need to use the obsolete "inflammable" of course, but at least the etymology of it is somewhat understandable. "Irregardless" is different, since its origins lie only in ignorance.

Evolution is, by definition, made of aberrations.

After such mutations, the useful ones survive and the remainder die out.

If you dig in your heels and stick to "proper" spelling and grammar, you will rapidly find yourself unable to communicate with the rest of us.

If I insist on using the correct word, you will somehow become incapable of understanding me? Everyone knows the meaning of "regardless", while some people may be confused by "irregardless". I prefer to use the word which is shorter, more widely understood, more elegant and (least importantly) technically correct.

As for others using "irregardless", I am perfectly capable of guessing their true meaning by context, but my opinion of them will be lower.

MRI effect?

[Frans Faase]

When my wife got an MRI when as part of the process to determine if she had Alzheimer's Disease, which turned out to be the case, she experienced a clearing of her mind during the MRI which lasted for about a day. When I reported this to the neurologist, she frowned upon it. I wonder if anybody has reported this effect, or whether it is even a real effect.

Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati

[Bigjeff5]

And seemingly the biggest problem compared to other EM-radiation is that your body simply cannot recognise the "new kinds" of radiation it's exposed to.

You mean the "new kinds" which have existed since the dawn of time? You realize we are pummeled with various wavelengths of EM radiation from all over the universe, not the least of which come from our own Sun, right? The Earth's magnetic field keeps out the nastiest high-frequency stuff for the most part, but the lower level stuff gets through. That's how radio telescopes work - they grab the sub-visible EM radiation from all over the galaxy that hits the planet and inundates us with EM radiation.

Hey guess which end of the scale cell phone radiation is in? It's not the high frequencies, it's in the low frequencies.

And of course EM radiation can affect our cells, but the lower the frequency the less energy it has, and the less damage it does. For example, even a few hours of exposure to UV radiation will start destroying our cells - a sunburn is the body's desperate attempt to save those cells and prevent further damage. However, drop just a little ways into the visible spectrum and suddenly EM radiation does virtually nothing to our bodies but stimulate vitamine D production in the skin.

Drop it even further and the EM radiation has even less of an effect, eventually getting into the range of cell phone signals.

Believing that cell phone radiation must be harming us even though there is no evidence is foolishness. The light emitted by a flashlight is thousands of times more potent than a cell phone signal, and emits a higher frequency of EM radiation which is closer to the dangerous radiations of UV, X-ray, and Gamma-Ray, and yet we aren't terrified of flashlights.

The idea that cell phone signals could cause damage is nonsensical, so it had better have some good, strong evidence behind it before I start believing it. So far the only good evidence behind it has shown a small positive effect.