Slashdot Log In
Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jul 24, 2008 02:03 PM
from the stick-it-in-your-ear dept.
from the stick-it-in-your-ear dept.
RevWaldo contributes a link to an AP story carried by Google, according to which "The head of a prominent cancer research institute issued an unprecedented warning to his faculty and staff Wednesday: Limit cell phone use because of the possible risk of cancer. The warning from Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, is contrary to numerous studies that don't find a link between cancer and cell phone use, and a public lack of worry by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration." RevWaldo continues: "One possible solution offered? 'Use a wireless headset.' No risk of EM exposure from one of them, no sirree!"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
On the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
Sure, cell phone use might give you cancer, but on the bright side there are hundreds of other compounds just in the air in Pittsburgh that will give you cancer much quicker, so there's really no need for concern.
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, my brother had to get a microwave meter, and needed to test it out. As part of his tests, he looked at the microwave output during various conditions of usage (that is, good reception --> bad reception). What he said is that the cell phone does ramp up to dangerous levels when it has bad reception.
Now consider that the skin of (say) a public city bus reflects the microwaves within the chamber, and you have a recipe for being toast.
I don't have more detail than that, but in line with that... yes, I'd say that it is wise to avoid using cell phones.
Even though the articles have been kept out of refereed medical journals, it's no secret.
Parent
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your brother measured the output and determined that, in his opinion, it can rise to dangerous levels. Even if that's true, what about the actual frequency being output? Not all frequencies will have the same effect.
Parent
So, he's a doctor? A radio safety expert? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's your brother's qualification to determine what "dangerous" levels of RF from a phone are? In particular, what makes him MORE qualified than the FCC, FDA and other government agencies that set maximum transmit power levels for mobile phones?
Parent
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
the cell phone does ramp up to dangerous levels when it has bad reception.
Cell phones generally transmit at 300 mW in normal cases, and can boost to 3 W (3000 mW) in bad reception cases.
Now consider that the skin of (say) a public city bus reflects the microwaves within the chamber, and you have a recipe for being toast.
Not quite. The concern about cell phones is that the transmitter is a centimeter or two from your head. Radiated energy decreases with r-2. A signal that bounces off of a bus wall, assuming no absorption and neglecting destructive interference, is going to be at about 2 m of travel distance, and thus will be 10,000 times weaker (i.e. equivalent to a cell phone transmitting at 0.3 mW). So you don't have to worry about phones you aren't using... unless, for example, there are 10,000 people using them within two meters of you at the same time.
Parent
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, my brother had to get a microwave meter, and needed to test it out. As part of his tests, he looked at the microwave output during various conditions of usage (that is, good reception --> bad reception). What he said is that the cell phone does ramp up to dangerous levels when it has bad reception.
Now consider that the skin of (say) a public city bus reflects the microwaves within the chamber, and you have a recipe for being toast.
I don't have more detail than that, but in line with that... yes, I'd say that it is wise to avoid using cell phones.
Even though the articles have been kept out of refereed medical journals, it's no secret.
So basically you draw a conclusion from what amounts to almost anecdotal evidence. Dangerous amounts? According to what exactly? If the output were at truly dangerous levels, we would see some evidence of that since people get crap reception all the time. Even if the output is at supposed dangerous levels (i.e., dangerous enough to cause noticeable damage), all studies thus far indicate that exposure to these dangerous levels in the amounts correlating with typical cell phone usage do not cause any damage. This seems to imply that the moniker "dangerous" is inappropriate.
Parent
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
I realize this isn't quite the same as measuring specific airborne toxins, but Pittsburgh has some of the worst particulate pollution of any US city. http://www.citymayors.com/environment/polluted_uscities.html [citymayors.com]
Parent
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
We still have fewer sunny days then Seattle though.
Parent
yep (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yep (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:yep (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Do what I do! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do what I do! (Score:5, Funny)
Some of us conspiracy theorists started implementing them when other slashdotters began disappearing in the middle of deep political/telecom discussions. It's obviously not perfect, but the idea is: if the government or our telecoms ever try to shut us down before we can hit the submit button on our rants, what we typed will stillThank you for choosing Comcast Cable as your #1 internet service provider!
Parent
Re:Do what I do! (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, how'd you hit the Submit button? Is that some sort of "mobile" dial-up you're using?
I bet you're really fun at parties.
how so? he ruins all the jokes!
Parent
Wireless headsets work (Score:5, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a cell phone transmitter (having to reach from the phone to the tower) is on the order of one watt, while your Bluetooth headset (having to reach only a few feet) is on the order of one milliwatt.
Which would you rather have up to your head?
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:5, Funny)
"Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that a cell phone transmitter (having to reach from the phone to the tower) is on the order of one watt, while your Bluetooth headset (having to reach only a few feet) is on the order of one milliwatt.
Which would you rather have up to your head?"
Well, having the cell phone to my head makes me look like I'm talking on the phone.
Having a bluetooth headset makes me look like I am talking to the voices in my head, or Dorkutis of Borg, depending on which side is seen.
So I'd rather use the phone, because the risk of brain cancer is probably an order of magnitude less than the damage to my image from using an item that is both dorky and pretentious at the same time.
Parent
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:5, Funny)
Let's see... You make Star Trek references and post on Slashdot.
I don't think you have to worry too much about damaging your Cool Guy image.
Parent
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:5, Funny)
Having a bluetooth headset makes me look like I am talking to the voices in my head...
I'm starting a new charity. I call it "Headsets for Schizos." Our objective is to give cell phone headsets to people with schizophrenia. With the headsets we provide them, they cease being crazy people talking to voices in their heads, and simply become normal people talking on the phone.
Parent
Re:Not 1 watt! Try 350mw! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:5, Interesting)
It has been previously reported that cell phones have RF leakage that travels right up the corded headset. So instead of the antenna being near the side-back of your head, it goes right into your ear.
I am just trying to help the paranoid a bit! :)
Parent
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:5, Insightful)
If it's the secretion of stress hormones, that probably has nothing to do with the radiation. It probably has to do with dealing with the assbag on the other end while driving your car, hoping not to hit some other brown nugget in his car talking to some git on the other end.
Parent
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:5, Funny)
Well, my company makes the 12-foot pole, which offers infinitesimally more protection. We're also getting ready to release a 3.5 meter pole for the overseas markets, and a 3.5 metre pole for uppity overseas markets.
Parent
I'd go for it. (Score:5, Funny)
Don't just shut up and drive. Just shut up. And while you're at it - get off my lawn.
Re:I'd go for it. (Score:5, Funny)
If people drove on my lawn I'd be pissed off too,
Parent
Man of science, my ass... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does he have ANY justification, other than "there *might* be a risk"?
So, if I tell him the sun MIGHT not come up tomorrow, will he not bother going to work? After all, I can't prove that the sun isn't coming up tomorrow - there's always some chance it won't.
Precautionary Principle: Hide from everything (Score:5, Informative)
In this case, the probability of getting cancer is small, the causes of most cancers are unknown, and the mechanisms by which EM energy might cause cancer are unlikely. And the solutions do not seem well considered, particularly the one involving replacing one EM device with three (the wireless link to the headset means the cellphone is transmitting both to the cell phone system and to the headset, on different frequencies; the headset's speaker might also be an EM device while the speaker on the cellphone might not be, so it could be a 1-to-4 EM change).
Parent
Re:Man of science, my ass... (Score:5, Funny)
If we have sunscreen to avert cancer from the sun, can we get a bottle of phonescreen to avert cancer from a cellphone?
Absolutely - I'll sell it to you. I'll warn you, it's a little pricey, but can you really put a price on your health? Especially when we're talking about something as serious as brain cancer?
And, to take care of any alarm over the expense, I offer a full guarantee. If you use my product, get brain cancer, can prove that it was a result of cell phone usage, and have documentation proving that you properly applied my product immediately before each phone call and intermittently after every 4.3 minutes of conversation, I'll give you your money back.
Parent
What about the speaker in a normal handset? (Score:5, Insightful)
The speaker in my desk phone is an EM-emitting device. Maybe I should be worried about that! I think I may need some grant money to study the health side-effects of me having to answer the phone.
No risk of EM exposure from one of them, no sirree (Score:5, Informative)
The fact is, most Bluetooth headsets are Class 2 devices, which have a maximum power of 2.5 mW. This is orders of magnitude less than the emissions from a cell phone, which can peak at 500 mW.
If the emissions from a cell phone are simply "questionable" in terms of cancer, there's no way a signal with 100x less power is. But on the flip side, the power difference between the two is so large that you COULD see them claiming cell emissions are "bad" while not seeing any problem with the much lower power emitted by Bluetooth Class 2 devices.
Ugh, I really hate stories like this (Score:5, Insightful)
On one hand, you've got the moonbats who see conspiracies everywhere and are all about what THEY don't what you to know THEY'RE doing, though they aren't quite sure who THEY are, but THEY are most certainly out to get us.
On the other hand, well, just look at all the shit we've been lied to about. Is it plausible that the cell phone industry went to market with products whose impacts weren't fully researched with consequences they themselves never dreamed of? Gee, let's see if we can think of another industry with a similar nasty surprise...oh, right, Big Tobacco. I seem to recall them insisting for years that there was no link between ciggies and cancer. I don't seem to recall too many consequences for these people lying to us, for obfuscating the debate with deliberately fabricated bullshit masquerading as science, and thus condemning more people to death.
The part that really pisses me off here is if there really is a cancer risk, you know damn well the cell companies will do their damnedest to cover it up and pretend there's nothing wrong, even while people continue to die. In fact, it would be utterly surprising if they did anything but this.
Re:Ugh, I really hate stories like this (Score:5, Insightful)
While you aren't wrong, you have to recognize that this sentence works just as well if you replace "cell phone" with "breakfast cereal" or "gym sock".
Before you talk about a cover up, you need to find a piece of evidence that shows there is actually a risk in the first place. The tobacco companies fought against mounds of data showing that cigarettes are dangerous, but in this case there is no mound of evidence that is being denied.
If medically and statistically valid studies show an elevated cancer risk of cell phone use, the cell phone companies will certainly lie about it. So what? They aren't the only source of information in the world.
Parent
Argumenum ad Verecudiam (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that he's an expert on this subject does not mean he is always right about this subject.
Re:Argumenum ad Verecudiam (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
FUD and ethics (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets study ham radio operators (Score:5, Informative)
Most of them (and perhaps their neighbors) have been in high RF fields for as many years as they have been licensed. I remember my station was on the second floor, so an AC safety ground was easy, but an RF ground was only possible at the lowest of frequencies. In fact if the ground wire is 1/4 wavelength long, it looks like an open circuit. So I used to have many problems where I would touch my equipment and get a very minor RF burn "ouch."
Moreover, in these cases, the exponential nature of EM fields with distance does not apply as energy appears at the station as well as at an antenna that might be far away.
I do have to note, that most of these problems have occurred in the 1.8Mhz to 50Mhz specturm, perhaps in the worst case only a 17th of the frequency that cell phones operate on. But hams have also routinely used UHF handheld transcievers for many many years, which is much more comparable to the cellular situation.
I don't know of any study relating ham radio to cancer, but then probably no one has ever studied it. But the national ham organization, the ARRL, http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/rfexpose.html [arrl.org], has been increasingly warning about potential hazards to hams, which I think is a good thing as it least in encourages proper technical practices.
Crap science and too many sheep (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, this is about the thousandth bogus report on this. Based on the dramatic increase in cellular use, and long term it has been used over, there is NO STATISTICAL CORRELEATION to cell phone use and cancer. Not by individual use studies, not by geographiucal correleation of users to cancer outbreaks, nothing.
Brain tumors numbers are up mostly because WE'RE ACTUALLY MORE CAPABLE OF FINDING THEM vs 30 years ago...
No mathematical model has yet been proposed to show any correlation between radio waves from publically accessible technology (obviously excluding X-rays here...) of ANY KIND, including exposure to microwave ovens, high power transmitters, TV, and more. The only thing we're somewhat sure of is that close proximity to extremely high voltage lines "could" be hazardous, but even there they're not 100% sure...
In fact, though cancer detection rates seem to be up, again, mostly due to our ability to better detect it, and due to an increased population of elderly and longer life spans, on the whole, it's believed we've actually reduced the likelyhood of cancer across the board aven with our increase in exposure to these waves.
Cancer is a DNA level response. They have not shown that DNA even respons to these frequncies of emission that I have heard. Does this guy know otherwise, and can he prove it? (cuz others have disproved it)
Granted, I'd be happier if the cell phone use culture was adjusted dramatically, especially use while driving and while in quiet environments, but crap science like this just pisses me off. I'm also sick and tired of the pharmacitical and medical industry in general, proposing medicines that cost more, and have worse side effects than current medice we have today, spending billionjs in marketing to people who have no medical knowledge or rational decision making ability, and billions "buying" doctors to prescribe the crap.
If the cure for a headache makes my nose bleed, my vision blurry, prevents me from driving a car, causes stomach ulcers, and could cause my kidneys to fail or heart to stop, i'll deal with the headache!
Also, even if it has a 1:10,000 chance of causing me cancer, I've got a 1:100 chance of being killed in my car, should I stop driving now too?
Re:Crap science and too many sheep (Score:5, Funny)
I've got a 1:100 chance of being killed in my car, should I stop driving now too?
Given that risk for most people is about 1:5000, maybe you should stop driving.
Parent
Insane (Score:5, Insightful)
"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
What this really proves is that we need to make sure that crazy people like this woman are not involved in making public policy decisions. You should at least have some indication that something is unsafe, or may be unsafe before you start issuing alarmist advice like this. If we waited until we knew for sure that every god damned little thing was safe before we started using it, we'd still be living in caves!
Holy crap I RTFA... (Score:5, Informative)
And what a doozy... nothing says... WAIT, STOP, CANCER RISK!
----------------
A 2008 University of Utah analysis looked at nine studies -- including some Herberman cites -- with thousands of brain tumor patients and concludes "we found no overall increased risk of brain tumors among cellular phone users. The potential elevated risk of brain tumors after long-term cellular phone use awaits confirmation by future studies."
Studies last year in France and Norway concluded the same thing.
"If there is a risk from these products -- and at this point we do not know that there is -- it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency Web site.
Still, Herberman cites a "growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer."
"Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use," he wrote in his memo.
A driving force behind the memo was Devra Lee Davis, the director of the university's center for environmental oncology.
"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
----------------
Here's the quote I love:
"I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."
Whooo, brill!
-AI
Parent
Re:Holy crap I RTFA... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also FTFA: "He even warns against using cell phones in public places like a bus because it exposes others to the phone's electromagnetic fields."
And here I thought the medical community would go after fatties next ... nope.
You're killing me with your Secondhand Cellular EMF! No calls allowed in a restaurant, or any other public place, and you must stand at least fifteen feet of any building entrance while getting your cellular fix ... outside!
Your right to speak ends where polluting my electromagnetic sphere begins!
Parent
Re:Too bad it didn't apply to cigarettes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
wrong, too (Score:5, Insightful)
"If there is a risk from these products -- and at this point we do not know that there is -- it is probably very small," the Food and Drug Administration says on an agency Web site.
That statement isn't supported by the data either. One really obvious problems with all these studies is that cell phone technologies keep changing, including frequencies, usage patterns, cofactors, and encodings. For example, AMPS at 800 MHz might be harmless, while HSDPA at 2100 MHz might be quite harmful after a decade of usage, yet none of these studies would show that. There are many other statistical effects in such retroactive studies that could hide even a substantial risk.
So, we simply don't know.
Parent
Re:Holy crap I RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh. No.
The question is, does Ms. Davis have any solid evidence whatsoever to back up alleged medical advice that could so profoundly affect (and perhaps panic) millions of people, to say nothing of potential economic consequences?
And since the answer seems to be a resounding "no", all that is demonstrated here is the speaker's deep credulity, alarmism and incompetence, and her future statements on scientific/medical issues should be evaluated as strongly suspect in credibility.
If there were the slightest shred of solid proof that there's a problem, she'd be right to spread the alarm far and wide. In this case, it appears she is happy to spread Internet urban legends without the slightest thought to the consequences.
Parent
Re:Holy crap I RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm ok with asking for a grant. However, I'm not so keen on asking for a press release.
Where's the data? (config -80'sArbys)
Parent
Re:What's the Physics? (Score:5, Informative)
Erm..
This makes no sense. Heat is kinetic energy. EM that is absorbed *becomes* heat, but so does the kinetic energy in bullets when they're absorbed. Just as it would absurd to comment on how low the "heat from bullets" compared to the "heat from the room and your body" it may be unhelpful to compare the heat imparted from cell phone's EM emissions.
And for reference, the heat isn't comparable at all. Cell phones transmit less than 1W. YOU on the other hand are a roughly 50W space heater. That's almost two orders of magnitude difference. So you're right about one thing: if the mechanism of damage is heating, cellphones are insignificant compared to environmental factors.
Unfortunately, the claims of the anti-cell phone crowd usually do not include damage by heating.
As to another of your claims, that the sun puts out more radiation than a cell-phone: this is true. It is also true however that the sun puts out quite a bit less radiation in the same band as the cell phone.
Please review your essay. It does the cause of skepticism no good to include pseudo-scientific reasoning against chicken-little techno-panicking.
Parent
Re:Judging from my evening commute ... (Score:5, Insightful)
And the extendable antenna doesn't move the transmission away from your head, the antenna transmits over the entire length, not just the tip. Extendable antennas increase reception by increasing the overall length of the antenna. My old sprint PCS phone was 1/4 wavelenth when collapsed and 5/8 wavelength when extended.
Parent
Re:I must be a scientist... (Score:5, Insightful)
The wireless headset is probably a much lower power transmitter than the one in the phone.
Parent
No, you must be clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No, you must be clueless (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Not as silly as the out-of-context quote sounds (Score:5, Insightful)
"One possible solution offered? 'Use a wireless headset.'"
That's idiotic so use a wired headset. Duh!
RTFA. The rest of the sentence making that suggestion points out that a bluetooth headset emits only about 1/100th of the power of the cellphone. (Hardly surprising, since it only needs to radio-link for a couple feet rather than a couple miles.)
The next sentence suggests a wired handsfree device - which MAY reduce exposure. (It may not reduce it as much as switching to a wireless handsfree, because some of the phone's RF may couple to the wire and be carried up to the wired headset. Lots of devilish details trying to figure out HOW much...)
Parent