Slashdot Mirror
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.
Neither TFA nor the researchers make the claim that "cell phones don't cause cancer". That was made up by whoever wrote the Slashdot summary.
O RLY? I disagree. I believe TFA really does say that cellphones don't cause cancer. They provide a bunch of supporting arguments and evidence of such, and then conclude with "We have had mobiles in Australia since 1987. Some 90% of the population use them today and many of these have used them for a lot longer than 20 years. But we are seeing no rise in the incidence of brain cancer against the background rate." What message do you think they want us to take away?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The real problem with the study is the inherent lie in the presentation of the study ie the claim of a 29 year analysis. This because year one is no where near the same as year 29 of the study. Think of it as age over time of the people. So year 1 had a huge percentage of he population with zero exposure at the start and only limited exposure there on in. Towards year 29 those most a risk have only limited exposure over time with maximum exposure to that form of radiation ie they are still to young to get a real measure of impact ie consider starting from the year 2000 on, for more realistic exposure, in terms of degree of exposure and number of years being exposed from a young age (using US data http://hypertextbook.com/facts...).
Reality is the most likely period of measure would be when children highly exposed hit their twenties and thirties, so large changes in occurrence would not logically occur until somewhere between the 2020s and 2040s. So the study is really disingenuous. Reality is the countdown for impact is only really starting now and would still be considered early for a population based study. So come back in the year 2030 and see how people feel about his study whether they are acknowledge for the efforts in a positive fashion of whether the population wants them hung, drawn and quartered for spreading false information.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Cellphones output less power and lower frequency than IR at room temperature. Human body temperature emits more than 400watts per square meter of skin in blackbody radiation. The only danger cellphones create is localized heating because they're not in thermal equilibrium, but the total energy is much lower.
Personally, I'm more worried about the localized heating caused by taking a hot shower. That is much more EM radiation than my cell phone and more deadly type of radiation, and it dries out my skin. A hot tub is right-out, along with exercising, and almost anything else that warms up your body more than a cell phone. The only thing more deadly is a lightbulb, of any kind. Very high frequency EM radiation compared to microwave, and much higher amounts of total radiation. Even possibly localized heating if you sit near an incandescent bulb.
Bullshit. Did you say that because it sounds nice or clever to you? BY DEFINITION there can be no causation without correlation.
A study published on the 1st April that has no indication of the strength of microwaves used and mentions specific medical applications instead of donestic microwave ovens. Why thats some compelling evidence , NOT
[site]
Breaking bonds isn't the only way cancer could be caused. Microwaves heat water (or rather, anything with an O-H bond with a similar dipole or equivalent). Heat denatures proteins, that is it can cause irreversible changes in the conformation (folding) of protein molecules. Think in terms of boiling egg white. It changes irreversibly from soluble to insoluble on heating. Every cell is full of proteins which control cell death, proliferation, stasis, and other critical functions. Denaturing some of them could shift the balance over towards uncontrolled proliferation, or it could compromise DNA damage detection and repair, predisposing to cancer in the future. There are a myriad of effects which could cause a cell to become cancerous either immediately, or in the future, as a result.
At a population level, do mobile phones have a statistically significant effect upon brain cancer? Not according to this study. But at an individual level, can prolonged exposure to microwave radiation cause cancers? Absolutely, though the chances are small. The fact that some very heavy mobile users have had growths on or in the ear (and this might avoid the "brain cancer" classification since it's cutaneous), implies a possible correlation. It might be below the threshold for statistical significance, and not worth worrying about, but that doesn't mean that microwaves weren't the primary cause of these cancers.
Another factor might be genetic. Maybe the few individuals unlucky to get cancer from microwave radiation have defects in their heat shock proteins, and so can't control the damage as effectively? Or have defects in their protein degradation pathways so the damaged proteins don't get recycled effectively? These would be very difficult to prove, but there may be some underlying predisposition we don't know about which is currently lost in the noise.
Every cell also experiences several K of temperature variance every day as a natural part of human circadian rythm. Cells near the edge of the body, especially at extremities like ears, are of course subjects to far greater and more frequent variance.
Your cell phone simply doesn't have the power output to matter. It's a rounding error on natural causes.
Better declare warm baths and hot meals carcinogenic too, then. They both heat your tissues far more effectively than your phone can.
I know it's fashionable to be scared of everything, but this is ridiculous.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.