Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds No Link Between Mobile Phones and Cancer (Again)
judgecorp writes "A Danish study of more than 350,000 people found no correlation between using a mobile phone and getting cancer. The results backs up previous work, but researchers say more work is needed to be completely sure."
...someone here telling that mobile phones may not cause damage to us, but they certainly make bees behave weird and die.
Actually, If you look at those studies closely, most of them say that there is no link, just a slight correlation.
Those studies are usually mis quoted, or taken out of context. Assuming they are not bias.
If their sample says there is, they write that there is, if then another study finds no cancer when exposing things to cell phones, they write that there isn't.
What I think is that there is such a low incidence, even if it exists, that it'll be almost impossible to prove conclusively.
I have seen enough studies that conclude even high cell phone usage is not going to give you cancer. But I work directly under a 200ft cell tower. I would really like to hear about a few studies in reference to living/working long hours around cell towers.
The problem is, the only way to do a study like this to be conclusive is well, you have to study over a long period of time. We're talking decades or more (I think this study only covered a decade).
They're all inconclusive because the link takes extremely long to develop. Cellphones in common use is a relatively recent thing (think 15 years or thereabouts where everyone has a cellphone), despite being easiliy available since the 80s.
Of course, though, we act like we can't live with them now. The 80s and early 90s must've been just terrible years for people who were growing up back then (mid-30s or so).
Those that aren't in the "We took 30 cancer patients and asked them if they used cell phones" category have generally not been statistically significant.
There's a good article about it here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100090300/do-mobile-phones-really-cause-cancer-probably-not-again/ from a little earlier this year.
Generally, phones causing cancer is much more "interesting" than phones not causing cancer, so the studies that show even the slightest hint that they might garner far more attention from the media than they probably should, whereas those that don't have to be much more significant (like this one) before they get decent coverage.
People who believe that cell phones cause cancer and vaccines cause autism will never be convenced by any amount of evidence.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
The use mobile phones while driving does multiply the accident rate, which can still kill people.
They also multiply rudeness in restaurants.
And no matter what any advertising tells you, you never look cool while holding or using one.
Lastly, the mobile you consider state-of-the-art will be mocked as utterly campy and brick-like by whatever they have in 10 years.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
People really want to have a link between something popular and widely used and a deadly condition.
If we have it and we like it. It has to be bad and evil and must be banned so no one can enjoy this again. It is kinda funny that it is usually the less informed segment of the liberal groups (AKA Dirty Hippies) who really push this stuff. And not the religious right who many religions focus of steering away from early possessions.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
E=hf.
Visible light does not cause cancer. UV, XRay, and Gamma (all higher frequency than visible) do cause cancer.
Even if we knew nothing about the fact that we are exposed to so much radio and microwave radiation on a daily basis, does it not make sense that electromagnetic radiation below visible light should also not cause cancer (that is, for it to not be an ionizing radiation)?
I mean, who cares if your brain dissipates some radio energy to heat in the brain? Has a small temperature in a localized part of the body caused cancer in the past? Unless the heat dissipated raises the temperature of the brain over 104, I do not see much concern.
http://xkcd.com/925/
Don't worry my generation is doing a long term study now. If there is well only my generation and the next are likely to die from it so no big deal.
Let's not forget that there are two types of conjectures: those that have been proven false, and those that have not yet been proven false, according to Karl Popper. So the conjecture "Cell phone's don't cause cancer" can be disproven by just one case where cancer is caused by a cell phone. Add that to the EXTREME difficulty in attributing the cause of cancer, and we'll never be completely sure.
Turn back the clock 60 years ago:
"Another study finds no link between tabbaco and cancer (again)"
"Another study finds no link between the ability to speak and real intellegence" FTFY.
Also, TOBACCO
Yes but those people were all crooks and liars and have paid for their crimes by becoming rich.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
So stop worrying about all the things that contribute so little to the risk that a 350,000 person study can't identify a link. Enjoy your life, and avoid the things with a strong correlation to cancer, like tobacco, excessive UV exposure, high levels of radioactivity, etc.
We don't need more study of a link between cell phone usage and cancer, because repeated studies have shown that any risk is too low to measure even in large studies of long term users, therefore, too low to worry about.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
What about the recent WHO alarm, then ? It's strange that when some studies find a correlation between phone use and cancer, almost immediately there's another one that shows the opposite.
--/ TZ
I think you're joking. If not, I'm sorry for you.
Very few, and those studies were seriously flawed. They had plenty that showed there was a link, they just never published those studies.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
I gave up the cell phone last week coz I thought it would cause cancer. Now I smoke 2 packs a day and I'm going through cell phone withdraws FML
any study with 350 000 people would have found strong correlation between smoking and cancer no matter which decade it was made.
Worked at a radio repair shop 1980 to 1990. When the first cell phones came out they were the size of a briefcase and mounted in a trunk of a vehicle and the antenna mounted on the roof of the vehicle. The handset mounted on the center hump next to the driver was somewhat like a Princess phone. Mostly doctors and lawyers at that time were able to afford purchase of a cell phone and air time. One doctor came into the shop and he wanted to have the cell phone radio removed. The radio/cell phone was installed about a month earlier. We asked the doctor why he didn't want the cell phone. He took out a device that measured for microwave oven leaks and placed that device near the ceiling of his vehicle, the alarm sounded, then he said this thing is frying my brain, take it out. So we obliged him and removed the radio/cell phone.
People are stupid.... People will continue to be stupid... That is the way of life.
Cell phones don't cause cancer, multiple studies show it..... "But a friend of a friend of mine says it does" so obviously they know more...
Global climate change is real, multiple studies show it.... "But the big oil companies say it's all lies" so obviously they know more...
Vaccines don't cause autism, multiple studies show it... "But it's all a cover up by the big medical companies and even a Bauchman said it does so it must me true!"
Maybe 25th time is the charm: "Significant link found between cellphones running Windows Phone, p < 0.05!"
Do tinfoil hats cause cancer?
A study did find a correlation between the funder of the study and the result of the study
The studies combined show about a 50% inconclusive result of the study.
The data was separated between the Industry funded studies and non industry funded studies and a strong correlation was found.
Industry funded studies find cell phones safe in 3/4's of the studies and only 1/4 show them not safe.
Non industry funded studies show the phones unsafe in 3/4's of the studies and safe in only 1/4 of the studies.
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation
The truth shall set you free!
Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).
Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much.
And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.
But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.
We should tell the "cell phones = cancer" nuts that computers definitely do cause cancer. Then at least we can get them off the Internet. From there, we tell them that bearings cause cancer, then their travel is restricted to within foot/horse range of their homes.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Turn back the clock 60 years ago:
"Another study finds no link between tabbaco and cancer (again)"
"Another study finds no link between the ability to speak and real intellegence" FTFY.
Also, TOBACCO
Also, INTELLIGENCE
How's that foot taste?
FC Closer
This is stupid, "oncogene" is is a category of genes that have the potential to cause cancer. In effected cells, one of these genes would be mutated of heavily expressed.
There is no "Onca gene" and the rest is just ridiculous.
The Luddites have just about run out of steam on this front.
But hey, I'm sure there's yet another "cell phones cause cars to randomly detonate with nuclear force" study right around the corner.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
Sir Walter Raleigh died of a throat ailment.
The WHO said that cell phones have a cancer risk similar to drinking coffee. Hardly an alarm.
:(){
Make that ionizing radiation. It can strip electrons, damage DNA. Cell phones produce non-ionizing radiation. They don't have enough energy to damage DNA.
But I heard that almost everyone who is getting brain cancer now is a mobile phone user. How can that be?
This just in: Coffee has been found to cause cancer!
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
XKCD covered the WHO alarm quite nicely..
Why is it that researchers always say that more research is needed? Is that like a barber always thinking you could use a haircut?
Just like the existence of unicorns.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Bayer-AG made an insecticide called Clothianidin to replace Imidacloprid as the patent expires (or expired) on it.
In field tests in Germany, Clothianidin was found to be EXTEREMELY LETHAL to bees because they bring the tainted pollen back to the hive, and it is fatal in very low doses. Literally one bee carrying the insecticide back will kill hundreds of bees in the colony.
Needless to say it is banned in Germany and the rest of the EU.
But Bayer is selling it in America, and the appearance of clothianidin on the US market exactly coincides with the start of the colony deaths here. For whatever reason (disclaimer: I am a Democrat) Obama and the EPA are doing NOTHING about this.
What's worse is that a lot of Bayer-funded research groups are actively putting out FUD like blaming mold, weather, pollution, and cell phone radiation on the bee deaths as a misdirection. I'm not saying all the research is flawed, but a surprisingly large portion of it is funded by groups that are subsidiaries or Bayer or otherwise related to them.
Bayer own trial results are very clear about the bee deaths and the effect of clothianidin on bees. That point can't be disputed. But why they've been allowed to sell it in the US is the shocking part IMO.
It's like with genetically modified food, all of Europe bans it but nobody stops them in the US. Or feeding cows dead cows that causes mad cow disease, a practice which is also banned in Europe.
To me, one of the biggest pitfalls of the "cell phones cause cancer" idea is that brain cancer is the primary kind being suggested. Why? The skin, bone marrow, and gonads (for those who keep phones on their belt or in their pocket) are all significantly more sensitive to radiation-induced cancer than the brain. And when you talk on the phone, any signal has to go through skin and bone before it gets to the brain. If cell phones could indeed cause cancer, we should see much stronger positive correlations in skin cancer, leukemia, and testicular/ovarian cancer than we do in brain cancer. But nobody is suggesting this (that I have seen). The whole idea is silly, from the perspective of both physics and biology.
I wonder, in the last 100 years, has anyone done any study on Amateur Radio Operators and their families?
Most hams have antennas, on their roofs, or in the back yard, radiating hundreds or in some cases, up to 1500 Watts of power.
Seems like doing a cancer risk study on them might provide some useful insight into the question of whether RF exposure can possibly increase risk of cancer?
Because in a paper you want to head of criticisms. In a perfect world by stating how you controlled for whatever the criticism is, in the real word often enough by sticking it in the "future work" bucket.
And journalists don't grasp that and hence when they read "further studies with large study populations, where the potential for misclassification of exposure and selection bias is minimised, are warranted" they read it as the scientists saying "more research is needed". When really they are saying "yes we didn't do that, but we know that and we didn't just not notice the obvious so please accept the paper anyway".
Of course no researched is going to turn down a grant :)
Cellphone subscribers prior to 1995? Doesn't that throw their study off a tad?
Forget it!
What's really fun is in trying to figure out how cell phones might cause cancer. Any sane analysis of the actual physics involved results in the wild, off the cuff guess that "they can't". Non-ionizing radiation with no more than a watt directed into the solid angle occupied by the head, no more than 4 watts if you ate a phone. You are at more risk putting on a hat than you are using a cell phone -- it prevents the loss of much more than 4 lousy watts (your brain burns almost a third of the total calories consumed by your body).
Let's see, a cell phone doesn't cause a measurable increase in temperature in tissue -- what little heating it might cause is instantly thermalized by the surrounding tissue and carried away and dispersed elsewhere in the body, just as is the energy trapped by wearing clothes, or a hat. The frequencies of radiation used aren't resonant with any particular structures (and are almost entirely attenuated within a CM or so of the skin anyway). At least two huge studies -- with commensurately good statistics -- find no correlation between cell phone usage and cancer. Various smaller studies sometimes do, but always at the limit of their statistical resolution, another way of saying "it's probably just statistical noise but we want to publish anyway".
The truly amazing thing is that nobody has the intestinal fortitude to just say it: Cell Phones Do Not Cause Cancer, So Get Over It.
It's not like there aren't plenty of things that do cause cancer out there to obsess over, after all. You know, cigarettes, coffee, booze, sex with many partners, certain common viruses, radiation, and a dazzling array of chemical additives that are routinely added to our food or pollutants to be found in our water. The really funny thing is that the person who rides a jet from where they do the research to the meeting where they present it in that one trip to 30,000 feet exposes themselves to real ionizing radiation that almost certainly increases their risk of cancer hundreds of times more than a lifetime of cell phone use (and is still such a small increase that it only shows up as a measurable increase in e.g. pilots and flight attendants who have flown almost daily for five years or more).
Somebody that actually wants to learn the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation could always go someplace like this:
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/MedicalTreatments/radiation-exposure-and-cancer
Ionizing radiation is high-frequency radiation that has enough energy to remove an electron from (ionize) an atom or molecule. Ionizing radiation has enough energy to damage the DNA in cells, which in turn may lead to cancer. Gamma rays, x-rays, some high-energy UV rays, and some sub-atomic particles such as alpha particles and protons are forms of ionizing radiation.
Non-ionizing radiation is low-frequency radiation that does not have enough energy to remove electrons or directly damage DNA. Low-energy UV rays, visible light, infrared rays, microwaves, and radio waves are all forms of non-ionizing radiation. Aside from UV rays, these types of radiation are not known to increase cancer risk.
It is important to understand the difference between these types of radiation. For example, the non-ionizing radiation given off by a cell phone or a television screen is not the same as the ionizing radiation you might get from x-rays taken in the hospital.
(emphasis my own). That really says it all, doesn't it?
Cell phones cause cancer (if at all) by magic!
rgb
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Coffee - it's almost as dangerous as using a cellphone, claims study.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
These kinds of stories sicken me. "No link". "No correlation". So what if there was? Correlation does not imply causation.
Yet "linked" and "correlated" appear everywhere in medicine. Why is our culture like this? I think it must be a kind of secular religion -- kind of like the faith we have in peer review.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
From TFA: In addition, early subscription holders were on average more exposed to radio frequency electromagnetic fields from their mobile phones as the early phones had a higher output power than newer generation phones.
If I am not wrong, the BTS controls the power used by each connected GSM handset, so that reciprocal interference and power consumption are minimized. This means that the amount of radiation dose received by each GSM user depends also from the BTS-to-user distance, and from the number of handsets simultaneously operating under the same BTS. It is a mistake to assume that the radiation dose received by each user is constant, and the study shouldn't be taken as conclusive.
It looks like that the same error has been made here as well: the dose received by each radio operator varied wildly.
This probably means that the studies set up a low boundary to the effect of RF on human health, bu these effects could be more severely related to the amount of RF power exposure. However better measurements are needed to confirm or deny this. In the meanwhile, it is probably safer to stay away from strong RF fields, after all...
Jesus. Hell of a post to follow from my not-as-witty-as-I'd-like-to-pretend-I-am comment. Good read though.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
Actually, If you look at those studies closely, most of them say that there is no link, just a slight correlation.
Those studies are usually mis quoted, or taken out of context. Assuming they are not bias.
I have no doubt that cell phone usage has little correlation (at best) with cancer.
But think about someone living under the roof in an apartment below a cell tower. This is something I'd like to see a study about. Because the cell tower emits orders of magnitudes higher than a cellphone, and it emits 24/7. IMO, the real issue with cellphones is this, not the cellphones themselves.
Write boring code, not shiny code!
Mobile phones are Group 2B Carcinogen. "Possibly carcinogenic to humans. More study required." The same classification as Coffee, Pickled Vegetables, and Talcum Powder.
This information brought to you by the tobacco industry!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Oh, you're going to get some knee-jerks with that one.
Incidentally, the capitalist way of dealing with GMOs would be to let anybody sell any genetically modified food they want, as long as it had large informative labeling on it. Scientists would love this, too, since it would let us do serious studies of how various different genetically modified organisms interact with public health. Informative labeling is good for researchers as well as for free markets.
But, we don't do that; instead we reward the makers of GM crops for allowing their products to contaminate others' fields, and allow everyone to sell GM products without informing the consumer. Recently there have even been attempts to prevent organic milk producers from labeling their products as non-BGH!
Why? Because you'd have to charge less for GM food. People won't pay the same money for an apple that's unfamiliar to them, if they can feed their children a well known reliable apple instead. And you not only have to lie to people about what you're selling, you have to prevent others from labeling their stuff accurately, too, in order to completely subvert the marketplace. That's why pseudo-libertarian corporate shills want to ban labeling stuff as non-GMO - it's to eliminate informed choice, which is what makes free markets work.
So although GM food may cost less to produce, in a fair market you can't charge the same price for it. You have to swindle the customer into buying, which is easy enough if you are already rich enough to buy and sell congressmen like bars of soap. And thus did capitalism die.
Hmm, better get back on topic. OK, I see Randall will have to revise the electromagnetic spectrum to remove "cell phone cancer rays"
"The results backs up previous work, but researchers say more work is needed to be completely sure."
After HUNDREDS of studies, and the vast majority of the credible ones, find there is no link, yet of course they want more money to do more studies, so of course more work is needed.
Let it go, already.
Years of subscription is a good proxy for the total exposation (and that's what matters here!).
Absolutely not: total exposition means little to nothing. A US nuclear worker can take 50 mSv/year for 20 years and live happy for 50 years afterwards, you can take half that dose in a day and be radiation sick.
Of course there are people who were heavy users from the beginning, while others got their phone just recently and aren't using it much. And there are people who refrained from getting a cell phone as long as possible, and are now heavy users because circumstances were so pressing that they finally went for a cell phone.
But in the end, it will get out on average, and in each of the groups, there are heavy users and users who seldom use a cell phone.
This could be true if cell phones and behaviours didn't change in the last twenty years. Unfortunately they changed, so it is an utterly false assumption. Prior to 1995: no SMS (first delivered in 1993, very limited adoption until the second half of the '90s), no internet surfing, no apps, heavy and cumbersome (you couldn't put your phone in you pocket prior to 1990), very limited battery life (you could use it for a few hours a day, only when needed), limited band (no dual band, no tri band, no quad band, just one), lower frequencies (max 950MHz, not 1.9 GHz and beyond), very costly (so no teenagers, you may think that altering the physiology of a teenager is more dangerous than altering that of a middle aged business man). Prior to 1995 phones had limited use and were used accordingly, today people keep their phones at hand and turned on 24 hours a day, 20 years ago you couldn't do it even if you wanted to (and there weren't much reasons to want it too).
Because there isn't one! Maybe EM radiation is harmful, but science tells is that the power levels in question, and the non-directed nature of the emissions, is not great enough to cause any harm. Taking 50 cellphones, taping them to the same spot on your body, and operating them 24/7 would probably not be a good idea, but using one in a normal fashion should be of no concern. They STILL are not the cause of colony collapse disorder in bees, either.
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
But think about someone living under the roof in an apartment below a cell tower. This is something I'd like to see a study about.
Are you aware that cell towers don't emit directly towards the ground? You're probably much better off than any house in the vicinity. And for those, the inverse-square law kicks in.
It might be true that no ammount of science will ever be complete and that for some people it becomes a religion. But, the problem with all the cell phone, autism/vaccines, etc... scares is not about scientists pushing an agenda. It's about people claiming that science has *proved* cell phones causes cancer. I have no problem believing that it's possible for cell phones to cause cancer, but it's different to claim one has faith in something than to also assert one has scientfic evidence or even more, proof. I can believe there might be aliens, but how many UFO loving people have you seen that are frank enough to say "we believe it while we have no scientific evidence"? I have not seen anyone in the media say "I'm worried cell phones might cause cancer but there's no evidence to support that". So, in these cases the ones building a very false religion are not scientists, but a bunch of activists, bad journalists, and lawyers. Look at the BioInitiative guys for example, they even mix ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Cellphone KILL cancer.
This sig is not paradoxical or ironic.
+5 insightful, if I had it to give.
And I know that it works, at least on a local level. For example, several years ago I learned that spammers were harvesting email addresses from forwarded chain letters, and sending viruses to them on letters forged from each others' names. I started telling that to friends and relatives and that I didn't want them to forward them to me "for security reasons". I didn't actually think it would stop them from sending them around, I mostly just wanted them to not have my name on their stupid lists. Turns out they really did stop sending me those things, and they actually cut back on the crap they forward to each other! I occasionally have to debunk a relative's question about "OMG, an analrapist hid in a shopping cart under the coat rack at the store and killed 37 women in Dallas on May 3rd of last year, was that true?" but I've now gone many happy years without being the direct recipient of any of the damn things.
Of course, I'm sure little Timmy died lonely and miserably because I didn't pray for his angels, or send him enough postcards to get his name in the Guinness Book of Records, or collect enough moldy pop can tabs to buy him seventeen seconds of dialysis, but I'm totally OK with that.
Now, I probably couldn't lie enough to get them to give up the internet entirely, but maybe if we told them that Wi-Fi caused sterility or computer mice caused Carpal-Tunnel-Induced-Melanomas, they'd at least cut back.
John
But, we don't do that; instead we reward the makers of GM crops for allowing their products to contaminate others' fields,
No, we don't. And if you try to support this statement by talking about that stupid farmer who intentionally kept GM seeds and then planted them in an effort to get a GM crop without having to pay for it, I'm going to beat you to death with your own keyboard. I've seen WAY too many twits trot out that old canard.
and allow everyone to sell GM products without informing the consumer.
OH NO!
Einstein, pretty much EVERY SINGLE FOOD WE CONSUME has been genetically modified by our species. You'd have to stick a label on everything. Tell me you're not one of those Ray Comfort adherents who think the Banana was designed by god.
Why? Because you'd have to charge less for GM food.
Sheer nonsense. Generally speaking, labels allow you to charge more. Observe:
"NEW! A specially designed combination of the ancient and venerable Pomelo and Mandarin varieties, our Natura-Organge(tm) oranges provides 5 times the Vitamin C content of competing brands, and over 50 times the anti-oxidants! Guaranteed to be more healthful than other types, our Oranges can be enjoyed on a daily basis, or used for a wide variety of home-remedies! Check out our websites for tips on using Natura-Orange oranges as a health supplement, hair-beautifier, and an additive for your favorite anti-wrinkle cream!"
The morons who buy food with "Organic" stickers on them would eat that shit up like there's no tomorrow. I could charge three times the price.
Ah, the knee jerk reaction, as expected.
Ah, I see. You're just a troll, looking for a rection. Well done, then. Carry on.
Actually, I looked in your comment history and read some of your other "rections".
What I saw disinclines me to converse with you.
Yes, the trolls often have that reaction. No worries - I would have given up on you after a bit of back and forth anyway. Cheers!