WHO: Use of cell phones may lead to cancer

[Dry Lips]

Now it's official! According to the World Health Organization,
cell phones are "in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category
as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform."

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/

[hhh]

This kind of sloppy reporting pisses me off. The scientists reviewed previous studies and said they found "possible evidence". So they are classifying cell phone use as "possibly carcinogenic to humans." Car exhaust is definitely carcinogenic to humans! Possible does not equal definitely. And where is the link to the actual W.H.O. press release? Grrr...

""The biggest problem we have is that we know most environmental factors take several decades of exposure before we really see the consequences," said Dr. Keith Black, chairman of neurology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles."

Unless car exhaust and chloroform also take several decades to show consequences, I don't see how they can make those comparisons.

[Dry Lips]

And where is the link to the actual W.H.O. press release?

http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf


Unless car exhaust and chloroform also take several decades to show consequences, I don't see how they can make those comparisons.

I don't think the comparison had to do with what happens when you suck on the exhaust pipe of your car, but the long term consequence of being exposed to for instance car exhaust. You don't contract cancer instantly from living in a city with much traffic, but the long term health effects of smog are well known.

But generally I agree that CNN often is somewhat careless in their reporting.

[PhillyPhil]

Got to love that CNN headline: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk.
Risk is already a possibility, but they've thrown is a 'can' and 'possible' before that. Really barely making a statement at all.


The panel also recognizes that most of the epidemiological research involving human exposure to radio frequencies is ambiguous; for all but two types of cancer, the current state of information is officially deemed ''inadequate.''

For those two types of cancer, glioma and acoustic neuroma, the committee considered the evidence to be somewhat stronger, rising to the level of ''limited.'' According to the IARC, this means that ''A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer,'' but ''chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.'' My emphasis. From Ars: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/05/who-declares-cellphones-possibly-carcinogenic.ars

[Gremlinzzz]

The U.S. Supreme Court has asked the United States to weigh in on a pending cert petition in a lawsuit that contends cellphone companies misled consumers about radiation and possible health risks.

The name plaintiff in the would-be class action, Francis Farina, says the defendants should have included headsets with cellphones to reduce radiation dangers, Law360 reports. At issue in the Supreme Court case is whether the state law claims are pre-empted because they frustrate federal regulations, according to the cert petition (PDF posted by SCOTUSblog).

The Supreme Court acted on the same day that an international panel of World Health Organization experts found that cell phones may cause cancer, report the Washington Post and CNN. The panel called the phones “possibly carcinogenic,” a finding that differs from WHO’s earlier conclusion that there were no cancer risks. The rating is the third highest, falling below “carcinogenic” and “probably carcinogenic,” the Post says.

One panel member said consumers might want to switch to texting or using headsets. Overall, the panel stressed that more research is needed and the cancer link has not yet been proven.

Farina alleges breach of warranty and violation of state unfair and deceptive trade practices laws.

The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled Farina’s suit is impliedly pre-empted. The appeals court said the Federal Communications Commission was charged with regulating safe levels of radio frequency radiation, and Farina’s suit would allow a differing definition of radio frequency safety, according to Law360.

Come too think of it, my ear does feel warm when using my cell phone!

[akand074]

"Possibly carcinogenic" like others said, everywhere I've read all they've actually said is that it "may cause brain cancer" etc. It's not conclusive. Even so, I'm sure it's not all that significant. Either way, I almost never talk on the phone or have the phone next to my face. Most often use it for texting/browsing and other productivity tasks. People trying to get a lawsuit together are just overreacting imo. Then again, it really doesn't take much to convince people to try to get a law suit going against someone.

[Gremlinzzz]

Some realastate agent said he used a cell phone 20 years and it was the cause of his brain tumour!that was on my local news.
Now do you think cell phone company's would keep research info from the public just to make money?:)
oh yeah the realastate agent had it removed and he,s find.

[8_Bit]

This does not surprise me. I am very sensitive to high frequency EMF's (electromagnetic fields) and get severe back pain and headaches from things like landline mobile phones and WiFi.

It's so easy for you to dismiss this if you are healthy. But people with chronic diseases feel the effects much more, because their cellular integrity has already been compromised. They can see that there is truth in this.

Remember that just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not damaging you. Ask the children of the Japanese who lived within the enduring radiation post-WW2. It can take years and generations for the effects to be visible.

Some day, history will look back on us and think what fools we were for so blindly accepting the rampant pollution of the Earth's sensitive energy field.
Industry has fooled everyone, unfortunately. It would be too inconvenient, and pose too much a threat to profits, for society to finally realize that this is harming us. Just like the tobacco industry for decades published their own "studies" that supposedly proved tobacco was not harmful. Eventually the truth did finally come out, and the truth about EMFs will too.

[forrestcupp]

They'll probably find out that living in a plastic oxygen bubble while drinking only purified water and eating a perfectly balanced diet can give you cancer.

[akand074]

Some realastate agent said he used a cell phone 20 years and it was the cause of his brain tumour!that was on my local news.
Now do you think cell phone company's would keep research info from the public just to make money?:)
oh yeah the realastate agent had it removed and he,s find.

I don't think cell phone sales would drop at all... Have you seen cigarette boxes? This is what can happen to you: horrible stuff. People don't even give it a second look. You think a little "you can possibly get cancer" from something as useful as a cell phone would cause many if any people to stop using them? Probably not. Company's have no problems. Also, there is no claim that cell phone companies lied about anything... the possibility has been always known, companies always have to file their products through the FCC before release. This is nothing new, this isn't likely something most users have to worry about.

[balumain]

When CFC's and cigerettes first appeard the risks were not known, same with hundreds of things, 50 years from now we may find science has advanced enough to put the record straight on many things one way or another that are relevent today including GM products. the modern day frequency is to rush in head first with "new technologies" and find out the consequences later.
I am all for new tech modern rubbish but yeah a trial period of many years could reveal more harm than good.

[Gremlinzzz]

There's a lot of talk in the news these days about whether or not cell phones emit enough radiation to cause adverse health effects. The concern is that cell phones are often placed close to or against the head during use, which puts the radiation in direct contact with the tissue in the head. There's evidence supporting both sides of the argument.

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cell-phone-radiation.htm

[DZ*]

Now it's official! According to the World Health Organization, cell phones are "in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform."

WHO put coffee and pickled vegetables in that same category too:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens

[PhillyPhil]

This does not surprise me. I am very sensitive to high frequency EMF's (electromagnetic fields) and get severe back pain and headaches from things like landline mobile phones and WiFi.

It's so easy for you to dismiss this if you are healthy. But people with chronic diseases feel the effects much more, because their cellular integrity has already been compromised. They can see that there is truth in this.

Remember that just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not damaging you. Ask the children of the Japanese who lived within the enduring radiation post-WW2. It can take years and generations for the effects to be visible.

Some day, history will look back on us and think what fools we were for so blindly accepting the rampant pollution of the Earth's sensitive energy field.
Industry has fooled everyone, unfortunately. It would be too inconvenient, and pose too much a threat to profits, for society to finally realize that this is harming us. Just like the tobacco industry for decades published their own "studies" that supposedly proved tobacco was not harmful. Eventually the truth did finally come out, and the truth about EMFs will too.

EMF sensitivity? You have a psychosomatic condition my friend. Have you noticed the symptoms of so-called ''ES'' are the same symptoms that stress has?

Plenty of studies have been done on this and guess what they show? That's right: no such thing as EMF sensitivity.

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/67/2/224
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601#secx10
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8934
http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20195/abstract;jsessionid=0F98F4DEDB6FFFB959345134370798 E6.d02t04?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+ be+disrupted+4+June+from+10-12+BST+for+monthly+maintenance
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16304699

The symptoms are real, the cause is not.

[Grenage]

Even with a mildly possible link, who would ever stop using such handy tools? Not me. I probably speak to someone on a mobile once a month.

[Bandit]

They'll probably find out that living in a plastic oxygen bubble while drinking only purified water and eating a perfectly balanced diet can give you cancer.
For real..

I remember when I was a kid they through you in a mud hole to get rid of allergies.. Now they poke you full of pills each morning..

[Grenage]

For real..

I remember when I was a kid they through you in a mud hole to get rid of allergies.. Now they poke you full of pills each morning..

Kill the kid, kill the allergies? ;)

[mips]

Everything causes cancer these days or is bad for you if all studies are to believed. Might as well stop breathing I reckon.

[3rdalbum]

Mobile phone radiation does not cause cancer. It is not being transmitted with enough power to knock electrons out of their orbits, and not at the correct frequency.

If mobile phone antennas gave off visible light, then I'd start being concerned, because if they emit visible light then they could be emitting UV too, which is ionizing radiation. But they don't. RF is harmless, even in the 2.4GHz range.

[u-noob-tu]

im only 20 years old, but i can remember the cell phone radiation legend since i was at least 8 or 9. if im not mistaken, when cell phones first came around, it was an even bigger deal (which makes sense, because they were massive and probably did give off some kind of radio waves). i dont think its anything to worry about, cuz you can get cancer from just about anything. everything gives off energy, and radiation is just a more intense type of energy. i remember a few years ago some guy got cancer from sniffing popcorn bags the moment they came out of the microwave, and then sued for it. right now the issue is 3d TV's (the ones that dont need glasses). people are saying it causes glaucoma. its just hype, pretty soon itll be something else.

[balumain]

For real..

I remember when I was a kid they through you in a mud hole to get rid of allergies.. Now they poke you full of pills each morning..


LoL And in my valley they hung juniper beads outside the front door to keep the ghost away. :)

[handy]

Everything causes cancer these days or is bad for you if all studies are to believed. Might as well stop breathing I reckon.

mips, are you in the river or what??

[walt.smith1960]

Hard to know, there might be something to it. I will just continue to not have one pressed up against my head 6 hours a day like some people seem to. Intensity and duration of exposure and all that.

[psusi]

Yay, it's a FUD party!

Radio waves are non ionizing radiation. Only ionizing radiation damages DNA. The only affect they have on living tissue is to heat it up ( in high doses, like in a microwave oven ). FM radio, radar towers, and microwave ovens have not given anyone cancer, ever, but people feared them all when they were first introduced. The same is true of cell phones.

[Grenage]

Either way, future generations will undoubtedly laugh at one of the two camps.

[handy]

Yay, it's a FUD party!

Radio waves are non ionizing radiation. Only ionizing radiation damages DNA. The only affect they have on living tissue is to heat it up ( in high doses, like in a microwave oven ). FM radio, radar towers, and microwave ovens have not given anyone cancer, ever, but people feared them all when they were first introduced. The same is true of cell phones.

I remember when I was young, & I knew what was going on, on this planet.

As the decades roll by, you tend to either become totally entrenched in your beliefs, or your mind opens up & sees just how much you do not know.

Both security & insecurity are fed by delusion (I won't get political). Somewhere in between lays the truth.

[psusi]

As the decades roll by, you tend to either become totally entrenched in your beliefs, or your mind opens up & sees just how much you do not know.


And when you realize how much you do not know, you can either go LEARN, or you can just BELIEVE. Those who do the former come to understand that there is no basis for the latter.

Is it possible that our current understanding of physics and biology has it wrong? Of course. Is there any reason to believe it does? No.

[cracker89]

Some day, history will look back on us and think what fools we were for so blindly accepting the rampant pollution of the Earth's sensitive energy field.
Industry has fooled everyone, unfortunately. It would be too inconvenient, and pose too much a threat to profits, for society to finally realize that this is harming us. Just like the tobacco industry for decades published their own "studies" that supposedly proved tobacco was not harmful. Eventually the truth did finally come out, and the truth about EMFs will too.


Amen.:lol:

[ubuntu-freak]

Pretty much everything causes cancer. Also, clean living and a tech-free life won't make you immortal.

[handy]

And when you realize how much you do not know, you can either go LEARN, or you can just BELIEVE. Those who do the former come to understand that there is no basis for the latter.

Is it possible that our current understanding of physics and biology has it wrong? Of course. Is there any reason to believe it does? No.

Truly! You have that much belief!

[fyfe54]

This type of sensationalized reporting pisses me off too.

Whatever happened to journalists who could READ and UNDERSTAND the results of a study and then put it (calmly and rationally) into terms we can all understand?

Try this....
http://blogs.forbes.com/matthewherper/2011/06/01/why-you-still-shouldnt-worry-about-cell-phones-and-cancer/

[8_Bit]

EMF sensitivity? You have a psychosomatic condition my friend. Have you noticed the symptoms of so-called ''ES'' are the same symptoms that stress has?

Plenty of studies have been done on this and guess what they show? That's right: no such thing as EMF sensitivity.

http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/67/2/224
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935108000601#secx10
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action?articleURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.8934
http://www.bmj.com/content/332/7546/886.full
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bem.20195/abstract;jsessionid=0F98F4DEDB6FFFB959345134370798 E6.d02t04?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+ be+disrupted+4+June+from+10-12+BST+for+monthly+maintenance
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16304699

The symptoms are real, the cause is not.

Does not surprise me you say this. Of course you will dismiss me as crazy. That's the problem with the medical profession and science today. They have become dogmatic.

If some new information comes out that proves mainstream scientific models are incorrect, scientists automatically dismiss it instead of doing what REAL scientists do - correcting the old model and adapting to the new. They are stuck with their heads up their butts. Just like Galileo's discovery proved too inconvenient for the establishment of his time, that is what continues to happen today. Scientists are human and subject to all the flaws of human character (namely, ego and greed) like the rest of us. As much as science has advanced in the last century, nothing has changed about the pigheadedness of the profession.

I was told for years that a condition I have was all in my head by several doctors until it was finally diagnosed properly as Lupus. The problem is not the patient's head, it is the incompetent doctor who can not figure out what is wrong. Instead of admitting that he has no answers, he automatically concludes it's the patient's fault, rather than the doctor's incompetence to blame.

I highly recommend you inform yourself and read "Cross Currents (http://amzn.com/0874776090)" by Dr. Robert Becker, who did extended research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on humans. He has over 80 published works on PubMed and other scientific peer-reviewed journals.

[handy]

This type of sensationalized reporting pisses me off too.

Whatever happened to journalists who could READ and UNDERSTAND the results of a study and then put it (calmly and rationally) into terms we can all understand?

Try this....
http://blogs.forbes.com/matthewherper/2011/06/01/why-you-still-shouldnt-worry-about-cell-phones-and-cancer/

Don't listen to journalists (Rupert owns most of them now), do your own research. Spend a month or more digging up everything you can on the subject, & then you will at least have a slightly informed view, upon which you can make your choice as to whether these CELL phone things are potentially bad for your health or not.

Most everything you read in the Cafe is hear say.

[psusi]

Does not surprise me you say this. Of course you will dismiss me as crazy. That's the problem with the medical profession and science today. They have become dogmatic.

Yes; that is the problem with science: it requires hard facts! Why can't it just let me believe what I want to believe?


If some new information comes out that proves mainstream scientific models are incorrect

You are projecting your own faults onto others. This is what YOU are doing; dismissing the mountain of evidence that you are wrong, because you want to believe. There is exactly zero evidence that electromagnetic waves cause cancer.

[handy]

Most people that suffer from scientism as well as the rest of us, should read "The Taboo of Subjectivity". Which was written by B. Allan Wallace, who is a physicist who lectures at university.

The book will introduce a new definition of consciousness to many. Whether they accept this new definition or not is of course another problem...

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/PhilosophyofReligion/?view=usa&ci=9780195173109

[psusi]

I highly recommend you inform yourself and read "Cross Currents (http://amzn.com/0874776090)" by Dr. Robert Becker, who did extended research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on humans. He has over 80 published works on PubMed and other scientific peer-reviewed journals.

From what I have been able to see, this guy's work was concerned with stimulating tissue regeneration by electrocution. Electric currents can cause all kinds of chemical reactions, so it is no surprise that some of them are beneficial.

While he appears to have believed that EMF could affect the body, as far as I can see, he offered no explanation as to how it could, or evidence that it actually does. He seems to also have believed in telepathy.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

[ssam]

the WHO?!? everyone (at least in the UK) knows that the daily mail is the one true authority on cancer.

"mobile phones both cause and prevent cancer"
http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/a-z/m

its funny how "no strong evidence to support hypothesis" becomes "hypothesis may be true".

[Dry Lips]

Radio waves are non ionizing radiation. Only ionizing radiation damages DNA. The only affect they have on living tissue is to heat it up ( in high doses, like in a microwave oven ). FM radio, radar towers, and microwave ovens have not given anyone cancer, ever, but people feared them all when they were first introduced. The same is true of cell phones.

Even if what you say about ionization is true, the radiation could alter the balance of the brain and may indirectly cause some kind of disturbance that may lead to cancer. Even though there isn't conclusive evidence that use of mobiles cause cancer in the short term, a lot of evidence have accumulated over the years that shows that cell-phones alter our biology in many, many ways. (It does for instance cause changes to the blood-brain barrier. )



Look for instance here:
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/search/simpleSearch.action;jsessionid=E7D93EA22691A096631 72A39C701A04B?query=Leif+Salford&x=0&y=0

Research has also shown that use of cell-phones alter the metabolism in the brain:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/

[tumbes2000]

I am shocked they have not put the Sun and Earth on the list given those two bodies produce the vast majority of radiation we absorb.

Tonight: How living in the Solar System can cause cancer.

[forrestcupp]

Well, they use radiation to shrink tumors. Who's to say that cell phones aren't actually shrinking our tumors instead of causing them? :)

[KiwiNZ]

Hands up those with Medical Degrees that have responded thus far in this thread ?

Then hands up those with Oncology or Neurological specialties?

[forrestcupp]

Hands up those with Medical Degrees that have responded thus far in this thread ?

Then hands up those with Oncology or Neurological specialties?

No, but I have a lot of experience with using cell phones. :)

[hhh]

Hands up those with Medical Degrees that have responded thus far in this thread ?
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/05/31/dr-manny-does-agree-cell-phone-cancer-study/
http://www.wtov9.com/news/28099108/detail.html
http://www.wthr.com/story/14814391/doctors-react-to-cell-phone-cancer-study
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/7701-world-health-organization-resurrects-cell-phone-cancer-specter
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_dont-panic-judicious-use-of-cell-phone-ok-doctors_1550120

[KiwiNZ]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/05/31/dr-manny-does-agree-cell-phone-cancer-study/
http://www.wtov9.com/news/28099108/detail.html
http://www.wthr.com/story/14814391/doctors-react-to-cell-phone-cancer-study
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/7701-world-health-organization-resurrects-cell-phone-cancer-specter
http://www.dnaindia.com/mumbai/report_dont-panic-judicious-use-of-cell-phone-ok-doctors_1550120

A more credible source will be The Lancet.

Fox News et al , ummmm no.

Also none of the above have posted here, which was my question

[hhh]

@Kiwi, I agree, FOX News is not my preferred news outlet (lol) but the doctor has a point. Every damn day a new health study comes out, often contradicting a study that was released a year before. So much of medicine is still *poke you with a stick*... *see if there is improvement*... *no improvement*... *throw pebbles at you*...

What are you implying? That your cell phone use is part of the cause of your health problems? To my mind, that's as crazy as thinking that your drinking bottled water and squeezing fresh juice instead of drinking tap water that's left in an open mouth container to dissipate some chemicals and drinking carton juice is going to make any radical difference in your health. It's a study saying we should keep an eye on cell phone radiation until we can make some conclusions in 20 years... if you have concerns then use an ear-piece and keep the phone in your pocket. Until next month's study comes out saying that cell phone radiation is shrinking your genitals.

15 years ago or so 60 minutes did a feature on what they thought was the oldest woman in the world at the time, she was well over 100 and lived in Russia, I think. She walked a few miles up the mountain every day to fill 2 buckets with spring water and hauled them back down. She also drank whiskey every night and smoked Marlboro Reds like a chimney.

Sincerely though, all good wishes for a speedy recovery.

-edit- BTW, I just searched The Lancet and The American Journal of Medicine sites and I didn't see even one article there on cell phones. I wonder why that is?

[KiwiNZ]

@Kiwi, I agree, FOX News is not my preferred news outlet (lol) but the doctor has a point. Every damn day a new health study comes out, often contradicting a study that was released a year before. So much of medicine is still *poke you with a stick*... *see if there is improvement*... *no improvement*... *throw pebbles at you*...

What are you implying? That your cell phone use is part of the cause of your health problems? To my mind, that's as crazy as thinking that your drinking bottled water and squeezing fresh juice instead of drinking tap water that's left in an open mouth container to dissipate some chemicals and drinking carton juice is going to make any radical difference in your health. It's a study saying we should keep an eye on cell phone radiation until we can make some conclusions in 20 years... if you have concerns then use an ear-piece and keep the phone in your pocket. Until next month's study comes out saying that cell phone radiation is shrinking your genitals.

15 years ago or so 60 minutes did a feature on what they thought was the oldest woman in the world at the time, she was well over 100 and lived in Russia, I think. She walked a few miles up the mountain every day to fill 2 buckets with spring water and hauled them back down. She also drank whiskey every night and smoked Marlboro Reds like a chimney.

Sincerely though, all good wishes for a speedy recovery.

-edit- BTW, I just searched The Lancet and The American Journal of Medicine sites and I didn't see even one article there on cell phones. I wonder why that is?

I drink filtered water, cook and wash with filtered water because of my condition. I have a heavily suppressed immune system and do not wish to become infected by something in the water. That is also why I make my own fruit juice.

Nothing is in Lancet yet as there is no definitive proof either way, WHO is calling for more research and has issued an advisory which is prudent based on initial findings.

[hhh]

I drink filtered water, cook and wash with filtered water because of my condition. I have a heavily suppressed immune system and do not wish to become infected by something in the water. That is also why I make my own fruit juice.
That makes perfect sense, and I apologize for bringing up a highly personal and I'm sure painful subject. Again, all the best wishes.

Yes, inconclusive. I still don't get what you're implying with the "any Oncologists posting here yet?" comment.

I agree with you that the warning WHO issued is valid, my issue was with the awful way the media covers such things, every story is sensationalized beyond belief, and rarely is there any follow up. I mean, one religious zealot with a radio show made a prediction about "The Rapture" and for a freaking week The End Of The World was a story in every news outlet that I looked at!

[Dry Lips]

15 years ago or so 60 minutes did a feature on what they thought was the oldest woman in the world at the time, she was well over 100 and lived in Russia, I think. She walked a few miles up the mountain every day to fill 2 buckets with spring water and hauled them back down. She also drank whiskey every night and smoked Marlboro Reds like a chimney.

One old chain-smoking woman doesn't mean that tobacco (or alcohol) is harmless, just that she was a lucky woman.



So much of medicine is still *poke you with a stick*... *see if there is improvement*... *no improvement*... *throw pebbles at you*... I agree that seemingly contradictory research can be confusing to us ordinary people,
and that there still are many things science don't know or understand... But that doesn't
invalidate the scientific method.


Why is it unthinkable that cell-phones may have a negative impact on
our health over time, when science established that use of cell-phones indeed leave an
impact on biological processes? See my earlier post:
http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10890332&postcount=38


I use cellphones myself, but I'm definitively not ruling out the possibility that
some things in our environment can be bad for us, even if we have grown accustomed
to their use.


Finally, I agree with your comments about the media.

[KiwiNZ]

That makes perfect sense, and I apologize for bringing up a highly personal and I'm sure painful subject. Again, all the best wishes.

Yes, inconclusive. I still don't get what you're implying with the "any Oncologists posting here yet?" comment.

I agree with you that the warning WHO issued is valid, my issue was with the awful way the media covers such things, every story is sensationalized beyond belief, and rarely is there any follow up. I mean, one religious zealot with a radio show made a prediction about "The Rapture" and for a freaking week The End Of The World was a story in every news outlet that I looked at!


Comments like this for example prompted my question.

"Mobile phone radiation does not cause cancer. It is not being transmitted with enough power to knock electrons out of their orbits, and not at the correct frequency."

[forrestcupp]

I drink filtered water, cook and wash with filtered water because of my condition. I have a heavily suppressed immune system and do not wish to become infected by something in the water. That is also why I make my own fruit juice.

That's a necessity for some people, like in your unfortunate situation. I remember my sister almost missing Christmas at my grandma's a long time ago because she had chicken pox and my cousin had leukemia.

The problem is that the world is pushing for everyone, even the healthy, to think they have to be completely sterile or they will die.

[PhillyPhil]

Hands up those with Medical Degrees that have responded thus far in this thread ?

Then hands up those with Oncology or Neurological specialties?

The people who wrote the quotes in the following quote(!). The rest of the quote was written by someone with a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cell Biology:
The panel also recognizes that most of the epidemiological research involving human exposure to radio frequencies is ambiguous; for all but two types of cancer, the current state of information is officially deemed ''inadequate.'' For those two types of cancer, glioma and acoustic neuroma, the committee considered the evidence to be somewhat stronger, rising to the level of ''limited.'' According to the IARC, this means that ''A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer,'' but ''chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.'' Emphasis is mine.
Mobile phone radiation does not cause cancer. It is not being transmitted with enough power to knock electrons out of their orbits, and not at the correct frequency. This is easily checked by anyone with a basic working knowledge of physics. The fact that radiation from your phone is not ionising is not disputed.

EDIT: struck out first sentence in last quote. Was not responding to that - included accidently, in a hurry.

[PhillyPhil]

Does not surprise me you say this. Of course you will dismiss me as crazy. That's the problem with the medical profession and science today. They have become dogmatic. Yes, unfortunately they want evidence before they believe something.
There is no evidence to support claims of EMF sensitivity, despite quite a few studies.

If some new information comes out that proves mainstream scientific models are incorrect, scientists automatically dismiss it instead of doing what REAL scientists do - correcting the old model and adapting to the new. They are stuck with their heads up their butts. Just like Galileo's discovery proved too inconvenient for the establishment of his time, that is what continues to happen today. Scientists are human and subject to all the flaws of human character (namely, ego and greed) like the rest of us. As much as science has advanced in the last century, nothing has changed about the pigheadedness of the profession. And people who don't agree with scientists always drag out ''Galileo'. FTR his theory was dismissed because it clashed with religious belief, not because there wasn't evidence to support it.


I was told for years that a condition I have was all in my head by several doctors until it was finally diagnosed properly as Lupus. The problem is not the patient's head, it is the incompetent doctor who can not figure out what is wrong. Instead of admitting that he has no answers, he automatically concludes it's the patient's fault, rather than the doctor's incompetence to blame. But there's no denying that in humans a psychological cause can manifest in physical symptoms.


I highly recommend you inform yourself and read "Cross Currents (http://amzn.com/0874776090)" by Dr. Robert Becker, who did extended research on the effects of electromagnetic fields on humans. He has over 80 published works on PubMed and other scientific peer-reviewed journals.

I had a look at his Wikipedia page, but to be perfectly honest and frank it needs to be rewritten because at the moment reads like it was written for a middle school project.
I also noted a suspicious dearth of links to reputable journals.
I'd like to point out that being reviewed by your peers in itself is largely irrelevant. What matters is what they say in their review. Eg Are you a genius or a crackpot?

[KiwiNZ]

This is easily checked by anyone with a basic working knowledge of physics. The fact that radiation from your phone is not ionising is not disputed.

I showed this to my son, he is still laughing.

[DZ*]

Hands up those with Medical Degrees that have responded thus far in this thread? Then hands up those with Oncology or Neurological specialties?

If we want an argument from authority, MDs aren't the right people to ask. The evidence is mostly epidemiological and whatever the mechanism, it has to lead to genetic changes. Proper "experts" for this type of question would be epidemiologists/statisticians and geneticists/molecular/cellular biologists.

[PhillyPhil]

I showed this to my son, he is still laughing.

Cell phone radiation is around 0.8 to 2.5 Ghz, far below what is required for ionization.

Note carefully that this issue ("Is cell phone radiation ionizing or not?" It's not, BTW - this is undisputed) is NOT the
same as "Does cell phone radiation cause cancer?"(which is disputed).

EDIT: Ok, I see what may have caused confusion:
my "easily checked with basic physics" statement was in no way intended to support this:
"Mobile phone radiation does not cause cancer."
which I inadvertently included in the quote (struck out now). I was only responding to the second sentence:
"It is not being transmitted with enough power to knock electrons out of their orbits, and not at the correct frequency."
which IS easily checked with basic physics.
I'm sorry for causing confusion.

It should be noted though that there is no evidence that cell phone radiation causes cancer. Even the study that started this thread does not claim to have any solid evidence that it's true:

chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.

[DZ*]

Most people that suffer from scientism as well as the rest of us, should read "The Taboo of Subjectivity". Which was written by B. Allan Wallace, who is a physicist who lectures at university

But he is not lecturing physics, he is lecturing "Religious Studies", for which, quite appropriately, he has Ph.D. and M.S. in "Religious Studies". I think you're denigrating the man by calling him a physicist.

[DZ*]

Most people that suffer from scientism as well as the rest of us, should read "The Taboo of Subjectivity"

Figuring out cellphones-cancer relation (if there is any) is best left to science and its tools.

[PhillyPhil]

But he is not lecturing physics, he is lecturing "Religious Studies", for which, quite appropriately, he has Ph.D. and M.S. in "Religious Studies". I think you're denigrating the man by calling him a physicist.
Haha! A genuinely laugh-out-loud funny moment! :D

[DZ*]

re: http://blogs.forbes.com/matthewherper/2011/06/01/why-you-still-shouldnt-worry-about-cell-phones-and-cancer/


Don't listen to journalists (Rupert owns most of them now), do your own research. Spend a month or more digging up everything you can on the subject, & then you will at least have a slightly informed view, upon which you can make your choice as to whether these CELL phone things are potentially bad for your health or not. Most everything you read in the Cafe is hear say.

He is making a minor mistake by interpreting a confidence interval as a range for possible values of the true risk increase (only "Bayesian" intervals have that interpretation). Otherwise, (and hear goes hearsay) his analysis is pretty good.

[KiwiNZ]

It should be noted though that there is no evidence that cell phone radiation causes cancer. Even the study that started this thread does not claim to have any solid evidence that it's true:

This is why I posted this in an earlier post

"WHO is calling for more research and has issued an advisory which is prudent based on initial findings."

[PhillyPhil]

This is why I posted this in an earlier post

"WHO is calling for more research and has issued an advisory which is prudent based on initial findings."
What is prudent is subjective. I personally find it disappointing (but not surprising) to wake up this moring and find "cell phones cause cancer" plastered all over the media, when the WHO said no such thing, and no study has ever said such a thing.

[KiwiNZ]

What is prudent is subjective. I personally find it disappointing (but not surprising) to wake up this moring and find "cell phones cause cancer" plastered all over the media, when the WHO said no such thing, and no study has ever said such a thing.

One should not blame the WHO for the stupidity of the Press. News media is 50% entertainment,45% marketing and 5% fact and useful reading.

[KiwiNZ]

This is better reading that Fox etc


http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

[DZ*]

This is better reading that Fox etc
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

There is nothing of substance in it. It basically says that IARC classifies cellphones into 2B (possible carcinogenes, like coffee and pickled vegetables). Then it reviews various classifications, that is, what goes into 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4).

[KiwiNZ]

This is an important summary in the report...

"A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the
evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including
the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1"

[I'mGeorge]

Now it's official! According to the World Health Organization,
cell phones are "in the same "carcinogenic hazard" category
as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform."

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/

It might be true but as you've already specified there are also the engine exhaust emissions that I believe are the most cancerous and hazardous for our health in many ways and still, although most people are well aware of this truth I don't see Johny Boy taking a walk when he goes shopping three streets from his house. He has to start the engine of his car even if the market where he shops is not that far away, just so everyone could see he has a new BMW or because he's just to lazy.

Now if cell phones are indeed cancerous they can't be more cancerous than all the exhaust emissions we inhale every single day when we're walking on a street or serving a coffee in a dinner regardless we like it or not, just because most of us became too damn attached to their cars forgetting the fact that sometimes you could just use a bicycle that does wonders for your health and the health of others.

[bra|10n]

And in the Australian media just yesterday, while the explanation of 'Cat 2B' dominated discourse on the subject, iPhones were singled out as less dangerous because they were newer. :popcorn:

[HermanAB]

If you use your cell phone outside in the sun, you will develop skin cancer...

[PhillyPhil]

This is an important summary in the report...

"A concise report summarizing the main conclusions of the IARC Working Group and the
evaluations of the carcinogenic hazard from radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including
the use of mobile telephones) will be published in The Lancet Oncology in its July 1"

That's great, obviously, but they've already given a less comprehensive summary of the conclusions in their press release. Everything is either (in their own words):
A positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible , but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence. or, for the majority:
The available studies are of insufficient quality, consistency or statistical power to permit a conclusion regarding the presence or absence of a causal association between exposure and cancer, or no data on cancer in humans are available. I doubt the Lancet publication will be of any extra use to us laymen.

[mips]

mips, are you in the river or what??

No but next they gonna tell us oxygen is bad for you because it leads to cell decay or something like that. There's always something out there that's gonna kill you :D