Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cellphone Radiation May Protect Brain From Alzheimers

Posted by kdawson on from the i-forget-why dept.

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..."

38 of 254 comments (clear)

  1. Mice by maxume · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    1. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thank you! Thank you!

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

    2. Re:Mice by docneuro · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    3. Re:Mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Mice by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Although in this case, they actually proved causation.

      --
      ...
    5. Re:Mice by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  2. Choice to Make by arthurpaliden · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
    1. Re:Choice to Make by lorenlal · · Score: 4, Funny

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

    2. Re:Choice to Make by arthurpaliden · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't remember......

      --
      Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
    3. Re:Choice to Make by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...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.

      --
      My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
    4. Re:Choice to Make by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    5. Re:Choice to Make by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Choice to Make by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    7. Re:Choice to Make by QuoteMstr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Choice to Make by Whiternoise · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    9. Re:Choice to Make by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    10. Re:Choice to Make by diablovision · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
    11. Re:Choice to Make by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. Of course it must be true by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  4. Hello, Mickey? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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???

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  5. Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by jameskojiro · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    1. Re:Fixing Forgetfull Grandma... by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

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

  6. scary by StripedCow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:scary by sunking2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    2. Re:scary by dr2chase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:scary by mcmonkey · · Score: 5, Funny
      Studies show that mouse heads are much smaller than human heads

      [Citation needed]

  7. If you give a mouse a cell phone, by MrEricSir · · Score: 4, Funny

    He's going to ask for a Bluetooth headset.

    --
    There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
  8. Re:Easily explained by gknoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Now try keeping the mice warm by reverseengineer · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    --
    "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
  10. Quick! by peacefinder · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
  11. A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiation by carlhaagen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  12. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
  13. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by boojum.cat · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  14. Easy call by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Funny

    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?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  15. Oh Yes! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    In your face Amish!!

  16. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    --
    Free Martian Whores!
  17. Re:A thought that crossed my mind about EM radiati by yoma666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  18. Ironic by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.