<p>Doesn’t the WHO study state that brain cancer is very slow in forming so it will take many years to really understand the impact of their widespread use, which is relatively recent. How many people were huge cell phone users a decade ago?</p>
<p>[Mutation</a>, Mutagens, and DNA Repair](<a href=“Division of Information Technology”>Division of Information Technology)</p>
<p>For anybody who wants to read actual science on the subject.</p>
<p>Yes, chemical influences can cause mutation. No, this was not the type of mutagen cited in the WHO study.</p>
<p>Here’s what the study says:
People use cell phones a lot. People get brain cancer a lot. It seems like there’s a correlation based upon the data we collected for both groups.</p>
<p>Causation implying correlation… That’s what’s created a lot of bad science over the years. There’s really no way to prove that it’s this low-level radiation that’s causing any problems at all, it’s just that radiation is a scary buzzword that gets media attention. It’s just as likely that having a perpetually warm ear causes cancer, or even that holding your head tilted causes pooling of carcinogenic toxins built up in your noggin. More plausibly, maybe it’s that heavy cell phone users spend more of their time in the city where more carcinogens are present. It’s really hard to pinpoint what’s going on.</p>
<p>From the website above:
“The longest waves (AM radio) have the least energy while successively shorter waves and increasing energy are seen with FM radio, TV, microwaves, infrared, visible, ultraviolet (UV), X and gamma radiation. The portion which is biologically significant is UV and higher energy radiation.” That low-energy microwave emission doesn’t have enough energy to pierce your skull, let alone pierce your skull, enter your brain, and wreak a lot of havoc.</p>
<p>That isn’t to say that these doctors are dumb, or that the public is gullible. But keep in mind that the most physics training that medical professionals have had very likely ends at AP-level physics. So, your high school Physics C student probably knows as much about the physics of radiation (and maybe more so, given that we know more now than we did when a lot of these docs were in academic training) than the folks who generated this report, and the other doctors who are now commenting on it. A lot of trained scientists and professionals out there are brilliant in their fields, but the mechanics of DNA mutation aren’t really in their fields.</p>
<p>Whereas if you talk to a physicist, they’ll look at the situation and get really skeptical. To them, this conclusion is akin to saying “this skinny dweeb with a running start might be able to break through that brick wall.” Scientists are rarely presumptuous enough to say “oh, that’s not true,” because there’s ALWAYS doubt in science. Okay, MAYBE the wall could be a fake wall. MAYBE the skinny dweeb could be on steroids. But still… looking at the dweeb and looking at the wall… they know it’s just not realistic. It’s unsettling, as a scientist, to see such implausible science being bandied about by people who aren’t experts in the actual field of relevance.</p>
<p>Cell phone manufacturers look at all the stuff out there, and they look at all the panic this sort of thing causes, and they sigh. They know that realistically, the skinny dweeb isn’t going to break through the brick wall, but they look at the corporate lawyer standing in their doorway, holding all this shaky scientific literature that causes folks to jump to conclusions, and they say, “Okay, fine, we’ll just tell people to hold it a little further from their ear. Happy?” If it were a REAL liability problem, then they’d put an ear-spacer on the phone to force you to hold it a safe distance away from your head, because that’d be a lawsuit waiting to happen if there were any convincing evidence that this was a real deal.</p>
<p>It’s just tough to say what’s going on here, so we’ve got to work in probabilities, and probability says that this doesn’t sound like it’s a realistic problem based upon scientific principles… But I can pretty much promise you that there’s a lot more evidence to say that you’re gonna get creamed crossing the street one of these days, so look both ways before you step off the curb.</p>
<p>
You have way too much faith in corporations.</p>
<p>There’s no way in he** any corp. will ever make such an admission of liability as putting a spacer on the phone, because then they would be instantly hit by tens of thousands of lawsuits that they had been selling dangerous products for years.</p>
<p>Instead, they will delay, deny, lie, hide behind regulations, and try to hide behind whatever science they can buy, to “prove” there is no issue. Each CEO will measure success by whether they can retire without the whole house of cards tumbling down on their watch.</p>
<p>See: tobacco companies.</p>
<p>Maybe it will turn out that EMR from phones isn’t causing brain cancer. I hope so - my DW spends 2+ hours on the cell phone every day. But I don’t trust cell phone manufacturers to be looking after my health.</p>
<p>2b classification != causes cancer.</p>
<p>“Group 2B: The agent (mixture) is possibly carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstance entails exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to humans”</p>
<p>@notrichenough</p>
<p>There’s a possibility that EM radiation is affecting some sort of methylation/other epigenetic stuff, but I quite doubt that non-bond-breaking EM will affect the DNA sequence itself. Still don’t think it’s likely.</p>
<p>Let me put it this way. A single flight is equivalent about seven x-rays in radiation amount. Yet pilots don’t all die of cancer. X-rays are far stronger than the energy needed to break nuclear bonds, and much (millions of times) stronger than the cellphone waves.</p>
<p>May I suggest an alternate explanation? People who have cell phones are probably going to be more affluent. They are thus more likely to have better medical care, which will mean that any cancer of theirs will likely be detected sooner and treated. There also may be a correlation between cell-phone use and affluence.</p>
<p>For the less affluent, there is a greater chance that, if they do get a brain tumor, it is not discovered until significantly later. Perhaps it is never discovered (they die of some other cause first). Dunno if the study controlled for wealth (and access to medical facilities), but that might help. Also comparing the number of brain cancer deaths instead of the number of diagnoses as well.</p>
<p>Another possible study - seeing if there’s more cancer in the right hemisphere (most people are right handed, right handed people tend to hold their phone to their right ear) </p>
<p>I honestly wouldn’t expect corporations to take care of my health, either. But, seriously, I don’t think that it’s likely. At all.</p>
<p>Oh, and texting is not necessarily a good idea. Especially texting while moving.</p>
<p>Actually, the poor are most reliant on cell phone & often don’t have landlines because they never know where they’ll be & if they’ll have a roof. They may not be able to afford many MINUTES or TEXTS, but they do have cell phones, which they carry about, especially if they have or want jobs. That is one of the few ways they can keep in touch. Younger folks are also likely to have cell phone only & no landline (my kids haven’t plugged a phone into their landline since they got out of HS & can only be reached by computer or cell–many of their peers are similar).</p>
<p>Just saying. The folks in our state who do statewide survey say this is a national trend & makes it hard to get accurate survey data from randomized households.</p>