Slashdot Mirror
World Health Organization Says Mobile Phones May Cause Cancer
Schiphol writes "A new study by the World Health Organization (WHO) concludes that mobile phone radiation presents a carcinogenic hazard. Are cell phones going to be the new tobacco, then?"
This seems to be a new interpretation of a long-tern WHO study of possible cellphone health risks that had "inconclusive results" last May.
I heard this on NPR and they did a better job of putting this new classification into context (and probably detoothing the newsworthiness). It's classified by the IARC as Group 2B, not even Group 2A. The serious list is Group 1 which indicates they are carcinogenic to humans. Group 2B simply means "possibly carcinogenic to humans."
I would like to point out that also in Group 2B are Magnetic fields (extremely low frequency), pickled vegetables, coffee, nickel and the occupation of carpentry and joinery. And you know what else? Citrus Red No. 2 which is used to color the oranges you buy in supermarkets.
So they've put it next to coffee, coinage and food coloring. Why doesn't everyone flip out when things like those are added to Group 2B?
My work here is dung.
Real story: the WHO lacked the guts to put this cellphone nonsense to bed once and for all. Studies that ask people with brain cancers "How much did you use your phone?" are pretty much all they had, and they seem to be the definition of "Confirmation Bias."
In other news, the media fails science forever, but we knew that already.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
Why the fuck do oranges have to be coloured? Are oranges not sufficiently orange?
Because oranges aren't always orange and they have imperfections. Shipping and storing only exacerbates this. But suppliers noticed that people bought more oranges when they looked "pure" orange. And the FDA allowed it (for whatever reason). Go to an organic food store sometime and look at the produce. You'll think it looks like shit. But it's really just not coated in dye.
Oh, but if the big bad evil government stopped oranges getting coated with food dye then everyone would complain that the nanny state is killing capitalism. So vote with your dollar and be lost in the sea of people who put perception above knowledge.
My work here is dung.
FYI: Also on the list:
Coffee
Pickles
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
If the radiation from phones (or wireless for that matter) are carcinogenic somehow, should we not see a dramatic increase in cancer incidences in people who suffer from broken DNA-repair mechanisms? Is this being observed?
Lead is a possible carcinogen...
Yeah, funny how all those useless studies over the last hundred years have nothing to do with the fact that I am able to read your drivel from the other side of the planet within seconds of you hitting the "submit" button - something that was unthinkable at the start of last century.
While the popular press likes to present science as a limited series of earth-shattering breakthroughs, in reality science is built upon thousands and thousands of tiny incremental steps, not all of them in the same direction.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Polycarbonate, the plastic used in most cellphones, out-gas various chemicals some of which are known carcinogens. These include benzene, toluene, and chlorobenzene. Since you usually hold the phone up to your face I would bet that you breath enough of this in to cause the amount of cancer found in any study. Real research is done with a negative control for a reason. Since, there is so much radio waves all around us, there is no where that you can exist without the presence of them. Not only that, there is no way for any EM of the wavelength (> than 1 M) or frequency to cause damage to any tissue. The microwave frequency can but it's wavelength is 10 cm and only interacts with molecules on the vibrational frequency that gets absorbed and converted into heat.
Claiming that cell phones can cause cancer is like saying that the wake from a surfboard could capsize a passing supertanker.
(And the orders of magnitude in this analogy are not exaggerated. The long-wavelength photons emitted by cell phones would need to be millions of times more energetic to break a peptide bond.)
According to the report there was a 40% increased chance of glioma among the heaviest cell phone users. According to wikipedia, glioma affects approximately 2-3 in 100,000 people. That's a 0.0025% chance. A 40% increase means cell phone users now have a 0.0035% chance, or 3-4 out of 100,000. You're still 3 times as likely to get hit by lightning and 250 times as likely to die in a fiery car crash.
That Daleks and Sonic Screwdrivers may cause cancer
...somebody said something might possibly do something.
Way to come out with a definitive conclusion there, WHO.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
Why is it that slashdot is all about crowd sourcing things and peer-to-peer distributing the load until it comes to government? Then, suddenly, there's all kind of trust and faith in consolidation of power, authority, (re)distribution of resources, etc..
Why are you trying to pigeonhole a complex and (in most respects diverse) group of people that often exhibits conflicting but strong opinions? I think crowd sourcing is stupid or nothing more than marketing except for very special cases and I strive for a balance of government regulation so that we get the best we can from capitalism while avoiding some of its horrors that used to happen in our country and still happen worldwide.
The fact that there are stores that openly and proudly sells uncolored produce tells me that many consumers know the difference and make a strong choice based upon those differences.
Tell me, right now, how close you live to an organic produce store or farmer's market that sells oranges without dye? And how far do you live from (many) regular orange dying super markets? The "choice" has many dimensions and factors and the way you simplify it down is laughable. Do you step outside and see two identical orange stands in front of your house, one dyed and one uncolored? The fact of the matter is that you are subject to the options of the population around you.
As a person who believes that going against capitalism often has unintended negative consequences
Well, I'm glad that you cling to a generic belief when it comes to policy. For me, it's not so simple and I have to make an effort to become informed and make a rational and logical decision that I hope strikes the right balance between capitalism and government regulation so that the people benefit the most. What "unintended negative consequence" did stopping child labor have? What "unintended negative consequence" did banning CFCs have? Oh, of course, the profit margin of some companies.
, all I really ask to be mandated by government in this kind of case is truth in labeling.
And where does it stop? Hmmmm? Should they have to label how these oranges were delivered so I can calculate my carbon offset? Should they be required to list which country and company provided the harvest of the oranges and what kind of labor was employed? Labels can be just as extreme as regulation, you know. And labeling food can be just as detrimental to the population as a whole. You can effectively inundate a consumer with information on a product to the point that they just don't care anymore. That's just as big a danger as absolutely no label. Do you think the average high school graduate can look at two dietary labels on two competing products and tell you the precise differences those labels mean for their particular diet?
What ever happened to critical thinking?
My work here is dung.
Er, what makes you think bluetooth isnt giving radiation as well, or that it doesnt operate in the 2.4ghz range?
It also says it may NOT be carcinogenic.
All the studies are inconclusive one way or another, but the bulk of studies seem to be against the idea that they are carcinogenic. Limited (I believe ONE) studies did show an increase in a lethal form of brain cancer, but no other studies supported this.
So they are probably not carcinogenic, but the bureaucrats are too testicularly-impaired to actually come out and say that, so they leave it at a "may be harmful" rating the same as a bunch of other meaninglessly-"dangerous" things like copper or being a carpenter.
-Styopa
Sorry, but this is a really dumb remark. Did you ever hear of an "Easy Bake" oven? In fact, visible light can harm you in exactly the same way as microwaves. It is purely a matter of energy and heat dissipation. If I put you in a box with a few thousand watts of visible light, you will be just as cooked as if you were in a microwave oven at the same wattage. There is only one known mechanism whereby electromagnetic radiation of frequency too low to break molecular bonds can cause biological damage, and that is to pump in energy faster than the body can dissipate it as heat. If you do that, you will warm up and eventually cook. Of course, this is entirely irrelevant to the alleged danger of low intensity microwave energy, where the energy flux is far, far below the body's heat dissipation capacity.
Ultraviolet radiation, of course, does have enough photon energy to break molecular bonds, but the energy of microwave photons is orders of magnitude lower. In fact, the energy of a microwave photon is on the same order as the energy of the random Brownian molecular impacts that every molecule of every cell experiences constantly. As a result, it would be a remarkable biological achievement if an organism were to evolve the ability to even detect low intensity microwaves. It would have to have some way of preserving that tiny amount of energy--too small to break any bonds, at most able to jiggle or twist them a bit--and isolate it from the huge background of similar energy Brownian noise, and do so long enough for some protein or other biological molecule to react and trigger the use of biological energy to make some sort of persistent change in the cell.
Meanwhile, of course, despite a huge increase in the use of cell phones, there has been no increase in the overall incidence or death rate of brain cancer.
Remarkable claims require remarkable evidence. In this case we have a remarkable claim, no plausible mechanism, and evidence that can most charitably be termed ambiguous.
Unbridled capitalism leads to companies doing anything they can get away with
Nanny state leads to government making more and more rules for companies to follow
Minimal government means forcing the companies to label properly
i.e. tell you the oranges are covered in dye, and that it is thought to be very low risk possible carcinogen, and leaving you to make up your on mind...
I don't mind if companies sell oranges covered in arsenic as long as they tell you first ...
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
CRT televisions and computer monitors do emit a small amount of X-rays, and X-rays can cause cancer in large doses. The dose you would get from using a CRT monitor for a year is considered to be negligible, though.
The ultraviolet portion of sunlight will cause skin cancer if you are in the sun too much.
The effect of electromagnetic radiation on human cells can be different for different wavelengths. One problem is that different cell phone standards use different wavelengths, and research on the health effects is lagging behind the deployment of new cell phone standards. The only data that we have is for standards that are being phased out.
"We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
Are cell phones going to be the new tobacco, then?
No.
Duh.
If cell phones were anywhere near as bad as tobacco - or even anywhere near as bad as the doomsayers insist - then the extensive, large-scale, costly, long-term studies already conducted would have picked up a clear effect already.
Detecting the negative health effects of tobacco was some pretty low-hanging epidemiological fruit. Smokers die between ten and fifteen years younger than their non-smoking peers. Between one half and two thirds will die from a smoking-related illness. Their risk of lung cancer is elevated more than tenfold; about one in six smokers will be killed by it.
For cellular phones, the absolute worst-case scenario is a statistically-significant increase in the risk of certain rare cancers, affecting a minuscule portion of the population. The WHO's caution is based principally on a single study that found a 40% increase in glioma incidence among heavy cell phone users; the WHO report noted that while there is reason for suspicion, chance or coincidence couldn't be ruled out as a cause of the apparent effect.
The incidence of central nervous system tumors is something like 7 per 100,000 population per year; gliomas are about half of that total. If we assume that the full 40% increase in risk is real and accurate, then we're looking at something like 1 or 2 cases per 100,000 population per year. This isn't the next tobacco. This isn't tobacco's kid brother. This isn't even tobacco's fifth cousin's hamster. Heavy cell phone use is something like a thousand-fold less risky than lighting up.
You're more likely to be killed by a car (either as a pedestrian or as an occupant), or drowning, or accidental poisoning. You're appreciably more likely to be shot and killed (though slightly less likely to be stabbed to death). Statistically speaking, the average American is quite a bit more likely to deliberately kill himself rather than wait for his cell phone to do it for him.
The most likely way for cell phone use to kill or maim anyone isn't through radiation, but through distracted driving.
~Idarubicin
Cell phones cannot cause cancer.
The reason is that the frequencies cell phones use are below the spectrum of ultraviolet light. It is near the spectrum of ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation occurs, which is required to be able to cause cancer. Ionizing means that the energy level of the individual photons of the transmission have enough energy to disturb the molecular structure of live cells. Microwave "radiation" (which has absolutely nothing to do with nuclear radiation) is far within the level of the non-ionizing radiation spectrum, so there is no possibility of it having the energy required to cause cancer.
Cell phones use frequencies around 800 MHz to around 2 GHz or so. 3 GHz has an energy level of about 12.4 ueV; ultraviolet light where the first ionizing radiation is possible is around 124ev -- that's a 10 million to one difference in energy level. Have a look at the energy level chart on the right hand side of:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
or even better, see page 3 of FCC OET Bulletin 56, which is a Q&A on Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields:
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet56/oet56e4.pdf
People are also afraid of the cell base stations, because they don't know how safe they actually are. The transmitters for these typically send 20 - 40 watts -- that's all. This is then sent through directional "sectored" antennas that typically have 120 degrees of horizontal beam width and only 6 to 15 degrees of vertical beam width; so the three-dimensional antenna pattern is like a 120 degree slice of a pancake, yielding gain of about 13 dBi. This focusing is where the "gain" of antennas comes from -- by focusing where the energy is transmitted.
In the U.S., the standard for specifically what frequencies and power levels are considered safe is the IEEE C95.1 standard, which is unfortunately not freely available, however there's a an overview here: http://www.interferencetechnology.com/uploads/media/AG_07.pdf
This standard is incredibly long to read, but boils down to this: the only proven effect of microwave radiation in 60 years of research is the effect of microwave heating. No cancer. Further than that, the standard narrows down to the power levels that are safe for various frequency regions concerning microwave heating.
But if you really want something to "bite your teeth on", have a look at the international ICNIRP guidelines: http://www.icnirp.de/documents/emfgdl.pdf
Now, if you go through the MATH of how close you have to be to the antennas of a cell tower for it to be "unsafe", the result is pretty interesting:
Spec limit for human-absorbed power per IEEE C95-1 at 900 MHz: 50 Watts/m^2
13 dBi gain = gain of 20
EIRP = 20 W transmitted power * gain of 20 = 400 W
400 W / 4*pi*R^2 = 50 W/m^2
R = 0.636 meters
0.636 meters = 2.09 feet
So at 900 MHz and with a typical transmit power of 20 Watts and a sectored antenna with 13 dBi gain, you need to be 2 feet in front of the antenna while it's transmitting for it to be considered unsafe. This means the only way it's unsafe for a human being is if they're not only on the tower, but right in front of the antenna while it's operating at full power.
The cell phones themselves have a limit on how much power they are allowed to transmit. There are different power limits in various countries; in the U.S. the limit is 1.6 W/kg SAR, in Canada I believe t
Plenty of vaccines and pro-active considerations, no outbreak = vaccines are useless and medicine just a money-grubbing scam
Plenty of vaccines and pro-active considerations, mild outbreak = vaccines clearly didn't do anything, medicine is just a money-grubbing scam
No vaccines, no pro-active considerations, major outbreak = stupid government, why didn't you take pro-active steps to prevent this!?
Why should I care about the average high school graduate? I can look at the dietary labels and tell you the important differences that pertain to my diet. As far as I'm concerned that's justification enough
But you would complain if the dietary labels would be instead written in some obscure domain-specific language (for example, off the top of my head, actual chemical composition of the incredients, or chemical reactions the ingredients may get involved in). The information would still be true, and complete (and maybe even more accurate than the current dietary labels), but in order to understand the actual effect on you you'd need specialized training or extended study time. Would you accept it's your fault for not having a MS in food chemistry?
The same applies everywhere. I don't want to have a PhD in economics to be able to understand my bank statement. I don't want a car only an expert mechanic can drive, or a washing machine only an expert electrician can plug in, and so on. I also don't have the arrogance to consider myself the standard everyone should use. I may be knowledgeable in computers, but I'm well aware there are many other things where my knowledge is equal or even less than the one of the "average high school graduate". And when I have to deal with those kinds of things I want the issues explained to me in clear, understandable language.