Cellphones Do Not Cause Brain Cancer, Says 29-Year Study (gizmodo.com)

A study from Australia reassures us that cellphones are reasonably safe, and do not cause brain cancer. Chris Mills writes from Gizmodo: "The study examines the incidence of brain cancer in the Australian population between 1982 to 2013. The study pitted the prevalence of mobile phones among the population -- starting at 0 percent -- against brain cancer rates, using data from national cancer registration data. The results showed a very slight increase in brain cancer rates among males, but a stable level among females. There were significant increases in over -70s, but began in 1982, before cellphones were even a thing." What makes the study in Australia so authentic compared to other studies conducted in other countries is the fact that all diagnosed cases of cancer have to be registered by law.

Comments

Re:Hypothesis, Analog versus Digital not considere

[thinkwaitfast]

There is no such thing as digital, unless you are talking about quantum mechanics. All digital phones, even digital computers, are fundamentally analog systems. Digital means that you ignore all signal level below a threshold. Something like -55dB/decade.

They can't

[MichaelSmith]

Photons from microwaves can't ionize matter. This is why ultraviolet photons are so dangerous: they can cause chemical changes in living tissue. Microwaves can't do that it it is silly to worry about it.

Re:They can't

[JBMcB]

As I understood, the fear is not about ionization, but about the biological effect of modulated signals.

Modulation doesn't matter. The frequency of the modulation doesn't matter. It would be like saying that, at the same volume, classical music is perfectly harmless but reggae will destroy your hearing. All that matters is the volume.

Other than that, the reason you can hear cell phone signals on a radio receiver is the cell signal is causing the radio receiver circuit to heterodyne. Unless the human body has some sort of natural frequency shifting circuit and amplifier, a cell signal isn't going to cause a low frequency harmonic in your organs.

Re: They can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, no. The relevant question for cancer is whether radiation can break atomic bonds (Molecular damage to DNA is the mechanism for causing cancer). Microwaves don't carry enough energy to do this. The quantity is irrelevant. What microwaves can do is excite molecules (cause them to accelerate, aka heat up). Meat in a microwave cooks because it gets hot just like if you steamed it. Microwaves cause the same amount of cancer as steam, they just sound scarier to people who don't know how they work.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

Re:They can't

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm, no, your whole thinking is completely off. For one thing, all alcohol that you're likely to have on hand has water in it (If not from the original solution it came in, at least from absorbing it from the atmosphere). Second, not *only* water is heated, many other molecules respond too (including alcohol, since it also has a dipole moment, 1.66, which is actualy pretty close to that of water, 1.87). Just look it up on wikipedia for FSM's sake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Principles

Many molecules (such as those of water) are electric dipoles, meaning that they have a partial positive charge at one end and a partial negative charge at the other, and therefore rotate as they try to align themselves with the alternating electric field of the microwaves. Rotating molecules hit other molecules and put them into motion, thus dispersing energy. This energy, when dispersed as molecular vibration in solids and liquids (i.e. as both potential energy and kinetic energy of atoms), is heat.

Re: They can't

[ooloorie]

Basically, no. The relevant question for cancer is whether radiation can break atomic bonds (Molecular damage to DNA is the mechanism for causing cancer). Microwaves don't carry enough energy to do this. The quantity is irrelevant

Cancer can be caused by many mechanisms other than breaking atomic bonds.

There is evidence that microwaves affect protein folding and conformation, and that suggests a possible mechanism for carcinogenicity.

Re: They can't

[ooloorie]

A study published on the 1st April that has no indication of the strength of microwaves used

There are dozens of other papers. Go look on Google Scholar.

Why thats some compelling evidence , NOT

It doesn't have to be "compelling evidence". The point is that people who say that there is no possibility that non-ionizing radiation causes cancer are wrong.

Re:Hypothesis, Analog versus Digital not considere

[Anonymous Coward]

Analog phones output at least 4x more radiation and as high as 20x more. I think that counts. My CDMA phone sends about 0.2watt nominal to the antenna. GSM phones output about 1 watts, analog phones are around 4 watts.

Re:Hypothesis, Analog versus Digital not considere

[thegarbz]

Digital means that you ignore all signal level below a threshold. Something like -55dB/decade.

This is how computers measure digital signals but it is not how digital RF systems work. You are right in that digital RF is fundamentally analogue but they do so by measuring differences in a continuously transmitter carrier signal at a specific frequency.

In the early days of mobile phones they were incredibly simple. They used frequency modulation of the carrier where the frequency change from the true carrier was related to the analogue signal on that carrier. Dead simple to decode.
These days RF signals still have the same carrier and they still operate the same fundamental way by altering the phase, frequency or amplitude of the carrier in relation to what is being sent across. The only difference is now this change in carrier is related to zeros and ones rather an analogue audio waveform.

All of this ignores the fact that even early analogue cellphones had a "digital" component which was used to communicate with the base stations. How else would the provider know to which base station to route the phone conversation, and how else would the individual phone itself know the call was for it, and not someone else.

this cannot be right

[strstr]

we already have firm data that cellphones do cause cancer, especially in children. the rates are looking like a three fold increase for children.

also this study is pretty narrow looking only at cancer in their area. we have firm data that cellphone radiation causes a variety of biological health effects including the activation of voltage gated calcium channels, which leads to numerous health problems such as autism, schizophrenia, headaches, anxiety, sleep disturbances, etc. we know DNA is harmed by microwave radiation and the damage sometimes doesn't show until subsequent generations of children. we know melatonin levels are lowered by microwave radiation. we know planet life, birds, and bees are impacted by cellphone, WiFi, and other signals. we know military radar causes cancer increases in those exposed to it.

this study is amongst the worst out there to have such a conclusion.

http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...
http://www.oregonstatehospital...

I wanted to let you know that we know the biological health effects of radiations, it's been studied. But the best data is classified and companies and doctors don't release the information or talk about it publically, nor does the government or military.

http://www.obamasweapon.com/