Cell Phone Use Study Sees Increased Cancer Risk 222
Dotnaught writes "Frequent cell phone users face a 50% greater risk of developing tumors in the salivary glands than those who don't use cell phones, according to a recently published study. The study, led by Tel Aviv University epidemiologist Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, appeared last December in the American Journal of Epidemiology 'Sadetzki's findings are sure to add to confusion surrounding the already contentious debate about the health effects of cell phone radiation. Many other studies in recent years have found no increased risk of cancer due to mobile phone use, but a few have stopped short of ruling the possibility out and a few have said increased risk of cancer is small but real.'. Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."
Good! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I know, I know. Actually thinking a post through before posting.. what nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
The summary said more people die of car wrecks than cancer. That's incorrect.
More people probably die from tripping over their shoelaces than salivary gland cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In the entire summary, "tumors in the salivary glands" (not cancer; tumors. not all tumors are cancerous) were mentioned once at the very beginning. Cancer was mentioned twice afterwards, including in the sentence about car crashes.
I think we can agree the summary was poorly written, and in a way that would lead one to believe that statistics show that cancer (not cancer of the salivary glands or even tumors in the salivary glands) is more prevalent than auto deaths.
No, we cannot.
I am not a native English speaker, yet I found the summary text completely unambiguous.
Besides, you probably meant it the other way round: that the summary supposedly led people to believe that auto deaths are more prevalent than cancer.
HTH. HAND.
Re: (Score:2)
But whom are they dangerous to? Smokers for the most part brought it on themselves. Sure there are people who were raised to smoke and people with lung cancer who worked in smokey bars but thats a minority. The difference on the road of course is that there are many innocent people killed by cars every day. Between DUI's and cellphones SUV's are borderline a menace to society.
Smokers can choose t
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
On top of that, many people CANNOT talk without using their hands. This is a direct conflict with driving, which requires use of at least one hand (for normal people). Yes, I have seen people driving down the road, with a headset on, AND talking with both hands... at this rate I believe that it is an activity which should get its own subcategory rank in the Darwin Awards runner's up list.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
I felt sure it was going to funny, but I don't see it
Feel cheated.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It matters not if you are eating, talking on the mobile, using the computer, reading a magazine/newspaper, or what have you.
All show signs that complete concentration are not being used for driving. When we're using directly controlled missiles with 3 sicks of dynamite of energy in them, we need our best concentration.
I also remember what the original "Cell phones cause Cancer" was about: somebody called the Larry King show about them b
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and you missed screaming child in the back seat as a distraction/stress enhancer;-)
I will usually ignore the buzzing of my phone while driving - if it's important they can leave a message.
I agree that the cancer threat is overblown.
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why that is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
Is this the study you're thinking of?
Leo GugertyCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Mick Rakauskasb and Johnell Brooksa
a Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA
b HumanFIRST Program, University of Minnesota, USA
Received 23 July 2003; Revised 1 December 2003; accepted 11 December 2003. Available online 24 April 2004.
Abstract
This study focused on how teams allocated attention between a driving-related spatial task and a verbal task, and how different kinds of verbal interactions affected performance of the driving-related task. In Experiment 1, 29 two-person teams performed an interactive verbal task while one team member also performed a simulated driving task. Of the team members performing only the verbal task, half could see their partner's spatial situation, as a car passenger can (in-person condition), and half were remotely located, similar to someone speaking to a driver using a cell-phone. Teams interacted verbally at an overall slower rate during remote than in-person interactions, suggesting that remote verbal interactions are more difficult than in-person interactions. Verbal interactions degraded situation awareness for driving-related information while performing the spatial task; and this degradation was not greater during remote than in-person interactions. Experiment 2 used a faster-paced verbal task and found greater degradation of situation awareness due to the verbal task. These findings are potentially relevant to the issue of how passenger and cell-phone conversations affect driving performance.
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
More dangerous. The friend can see what's going on around you, and can shut up when needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That most assuredly depends on what kind of friend you have. Somebody fooling around or doing stupid actions would assuredly be worse.
My original question was making the connection to distracted driving: what difference is there in a conversation over a phone vs. in person?
Re: (Score:2)
My original question was making the connection to distracted driving: what difference is there in a conversation over a phone vs. in person?
Whenever you're trying to understand somebody over a cellphone, a huge portion of your brain has to be dedicated to signal processing to reconstruct the meaning of sounds that had been compressed down to a couple of kilobits per second. The dynamic range, signal to noise ratio, and freqency spectrum have all been hugely limited, and you get zero spacial information after the sound has been piped through a single tiny 1/4-inch microphone. The random short dropouts of sound common on wireless calls make th
Re: (Score:2)
You're not married are you.
(Just kidding honey, Honest!)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
It is FAR more dangerous to talk on the phone while driving than to talk to another person in the car.
Re: (Score:2)
And even if they don't necessarily shut up, they understand that if you don't pay attention to them, it's because you're paying attention to the road, a fact that they will generally be grateful for. A person on the phone expects to receive your full attention -- in general, it's considered rude if you're talking to someone on the phone and you ask them a question and they don't answer because they're paying attention to
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just goes to show who has the more powerful lobbies, Big "Food", vs. Big Cell and Big Friend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cage match (Score:5, Funny)
and one can't help but recall the Steven Wright joke about getting a humidifier
and a de-humidifier for Christmas. So he put them in one room and let them
fight it out.
Maybe there could be some kind of academic cage match between the two camps,
wherein they have to explain their research publicly, and get to critique the
methodology of the opposing camp.
The match ends when intellectual honesty compels one camp to admit that their
work is an absolut waste of human time, at which point enter John Cleese to issue
a Wensleydale [wikipedia.org].
Contridicting Studies (Score:2)
In reviewing different studies relating to cell phone type radiation and brain cancer for a course in college, the studies could be divided approximately in half. The data is not yet conclusive one way or another. For those who are concerned about the risk, there are some ways that you can reduce your risk:
1 (obvious) Talk on the cell phone less frequently.
2 (best) Place your cell phone on your belt, and use a headset. Rem
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Doesn't anyone think of the children anymore???
Re:Contradicting Studies -FTFY (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was subscribed to Management Information Systems Quarterly for a couple of years.
The short form of the journal's title, pronounced "MIScue", doubled as a one-word review.
Talk less (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe its because they are talking all the time, drying out their mouths, and their salivary glands are stressed, causing cancers."
Although if this premise were correct, a study would show an increase on gum disease in cellphone-using people, not unlilke the increased incidence of gum disease in pot and cigarette smok
"Cancer Machine ON" (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? Chocolate makes you fat, Tobacco gives you cancer, Death and Taxes are inevitable. Until humans live forever and are tax-exempt, at least they DO have a choice on the others.
Skeptic (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like another one of those liberal lies... Like global warming.
So what if my cell phone melted to my neck goiter while I was using it outdoors in the middle of January? It's totally coincidental.
if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, I would basically be saying goodbye to my social life (what little I have of one after work) if I stopped using a mobile phone.
Therefore, I hope this study is wrong. If it isn't I hope that mobile manufacturers can somehow make next gen phones slightly safer, if possible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Example, this morning, before I even had my contact lenses in after waking up I was blindly fumbling with my laptop, logging onto skype and discussing a project with some Indian de
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I went through a similar phase many years ago. It's quite flattering to feel that you're always needed - for a time. After that it becomes a chore, then something you hate.
Most people grow out of it when they realise that the people who put them "on permanent call" are really just being lazy/exploitative.
Others find it's reassuring to know that someone wants/needs them. If so, then fine - they're getting something out of it too (apart from stress
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You poor, poor man. I don't care how much money you have or make, you are still poverty stricken.
Re: (Score:2)
On this point, I agree it can suck. I love reading and am currently working through the History of Western Philosophy. As a college student I would have ripped through this in a few weeks but with my current time commitments its more like a slog through a jungle whilst hopping on one leg. But i'm hoping that the responsibilities I have in my job, combined with the great references i'll get will give me the chance to get a job where i'm under less pressure.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, I don't know what my point was.
What confusion around studies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not reassuring (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention cell phones can cause car crashes. (Score:2)
Re:Not reassuring (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Margin of error (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Margin of error (Score:4, Informative)
These figures comes from two different studies. The \emph{relative risk} increase of 1.5 comes from one case-control study. This is then applied to a survey of the total number of cases in the population, leading to an estimate of the \emph{absolute risk} increase of 0.0015%. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The result isn't worth getting too excited about, but it's interesting none the less.
The bigger problem I would have, (although I don't think it's a fatal problem for the study) is that overall they found no effect of being a regular phone user. They had to do a subgroup analysis of very heavy users in rural areas to find a significant increase. I'd also be worried this being a freak result given the number of negative findings.
Re:Margin of error (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I would sincerely love it if latex syntax became the standard for faux markup on slashdot instead of <sigh>html</sigh>.
nevermind next to nobody gets it (Score:2)
3x more likely (Score:5, Funny)
Particularly if you are talking on your cell phone at the time.
Three times (Score:2, Insightful)
Radio waves or just talking a lot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Effectively Zero Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on that data, a 50% increase would raise one's theoretical high-end risk of developing a tumor in the head from 0.003% per year to 0.0045% per year.
This translates into an effectively zero risk. The risk is so low that an individual couldn't really justify spending any time or money trying to lower it further.
We've got to learn that even though our advancing technology allows us to measure smaller and smaller risk, that doesn't mean that "something has to be done!" for every risk we can measure.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you hold it? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article:
Does this simply mean we should use handsfree headsets or hold the phone away from our heads?
I happen to hold mine in front and use the loudspeaker but that's purely because I'm deaf in one ear and don't like not being able to hear anything else that's going on.
Bad math (Score:2)
Things not mentioned (Score:2)
We're all going to die because of wireless freedom.
Oblig. Family Guy (Score:2)
Our flashy cell phones make people mumble,
"Gee whiz- look how important he is, his life must rule!"
You'll get a tumor, but on your surgery day
The doc will see it and say, "Wow, you must really be cool!"
Salivary Glands (Score:2)
** scratches head **
Without those glands a lot more beer will need to flow. What's bad about that?
What *type* of cell phone? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have access to the main journal article, so it's possible the answer is in there, but there are potentially a lot of variables in 'cell phone' use. The article kind of hints at that in the following:
I would be curious if anyone has done a larger break-down of the 'risk' seen in this study, to find out if users were using older analogue phones, or newer digital, spread-spectrum phones (which, I believe, typically run at much lower power levels). What frequencies do the phones run at? (It might be, I dunno, that different mobile phone networks around the world use different frequencies, and there might be a correlation to specific frequencies used and an increase in cancer). I would also be curious to see if anyone is able to repeat this finding in other populations outside of Israel? Maybe the increased risk is really something in the air or water? Hard to say sometimes. . .
Honestly though, if it were me, and I were living in Israel, I think there are risks I'd be more worried about than my cell phone. . . like Hezbollah missiles, Palestinian suicide bombers, another war erupting with the neighboring countries, etc. . .
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Therefore, the sun is approximately infinitely more likely to cause cancer than a cell phone.
Non-ionizing radiation [wikipedia.org] (which is all that cell phones produce) has little to no impact on the human body. See for example, light bulbs, radios, radio stations, TV stations, microwaves, ovens, the earth's magnetic field, refrigerator magnets, CB radios, MRI machines, CAT scanners, PET scanners, CD players, MP3 players, computers, monitors, TVs, cell phones, watches, motors.
The worst a cell phone can do to your body via radiation, is make you a few nano-joules more energetic. Unless of course you installed a nuclear power source in your phone for some reason. Your freaking smoke detectors are more likely to cause cancer than your cell phone.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the fact that cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation is in no sense a resounding argument for their safety. We do know that typical phone signals can result in cellular heating, and there may subtle results of this and other weak interactions that we do not yet understand, especially if those interactions are somehow a function of the signal's frequency.
We do not know enough about cellular biology to make the assumption that non-ionizing radiation is inherently safe across all frequencies and power levels, especially if the source of that radiation is a cell phone -- which puts out a fair deal more radio power than the CD players and displays you compare it to, and which is typically operated right next to one's head.
Therefore, we are not justified in categorically tossing out any new research that indicates a potential link between cell phone use and health problems. The question of cell phones and cancer does not yet have enough evidence pointing in either direction to give us a solid conclusion. So just let the scientists be scientists, since raw empirical evidence is the only way we'll ever answer this question in our lifetimes.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Walk outside on a sunny day. You have just exposed your head to far more non-ionizing radiation than a cell phone.
If exposure to non-ionizing radiation was dangerous, that gigantic fireball in the sky would have killed us all by now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to everyone who's died of skin cancer.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Ultraviolet light causes skin cancer. Ultraviolet light is ionizing radiation. that big radiation-spewing ball also puts out lots of non-ionizing radiation. Far more non-ionizing radiation reaches the surface of the earth than ionizing radiation.
Re: (Score:2)
Walk outside on a sunny day. You have just exposed your head to far more non-ionizing radiation than a cell phone.
First, the sun does cause cancer. Just so you know, you should avoid getting too much direct sunlight. Wear sunscreen on exposed skin.
Second, frequency matters (which is why people are worried about the UV spectrum of sunlight, not the visible spectrum). The frequency is directly related to the energy of the electromagnetic wave. Now, I'm not a crackpot who thinks everyone should stop using cell phones and turn off their wireless routers, but it's just not as simple as, "studies are irrelevant, it's
Re: (Score:2)
May I invite you to read the comment you just replied to, particularly the part where I said:
To reiterate, we still haven't reached the point where we really understand the underlying mechanisms of cancer, not by a long shot. So to pretend that we can preclude cell phones as a potential cause of cancer when some of the empirical evidence suggests that it may be otherwise is absolutely unsound, no matter how unlikely it
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
PET scans do involve ionizing radiation, not from the machine itself but from a radioisotope such as carbon-11 which is injected into the test subject. It emits positrons when it decays which are directly ionizing in the same way as beta radiation. The positrons then annihilate with electrons producing a pair of 511 keV gamma photons. The gamma radiation is also ionizing.
With regard to the cell phones the suggested mechanism is localized heating of the tissues near to the antenna which is possible but wou
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
IAALRRT(I Am A Licensed and Registered Radiologic Technologist) ie. x-ray tech.
You are correct that the cell phone signal is indeed non-ionizing, but CAT scanners use the maximum amount of ionizing radiation that is legal to give a person. The legal limits are set so low that the net affect of having a CT is minimal especially when weighed against the possibility of having a serious medical condition go unnoticed.
CT scans typically use radiation with a penetrating strength of @120kvp (KiloVolts Peak). This is strong enough that when a cell is damaged it is usually either fatal to the cell or results in the inability of the cell to reproduce (this makes the chances of getting cancer very slim). This is why pregnant women in their first trimester can not have a CT scan. Our bodies can easily recover form the loss of a few hundred cells, but the baby will almost certainly not be able to recover.
This is all assuming that by CAT scanner you meant Computer Aided Tomography. If you meant something else then please disregard this post.
Richard Easterling
So what... (Score:2)
Look at the odds of being killed by a terrorist...Yet how much are we spending, how many rights are being trampled, and what other things are being ignored to address that 'serious concern'.
I Can Hear It Now..... (Score:2, Funny)
In this corner, with combined revenue of over 220 billion.....CELL PHONE MANUFACTURERS! In the other corner, already salivating like half-starved rabid dogs, PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS!
"LETS GET READY TO RRRUUUMMMBLLLE!
(CLANG! CLANG! CLANG!)
(sounds of lawyers shuffling papers and shouting as lawyers demand settlements)
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm...Actually (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The interference with speakers is caused by...wait for it... radio waves.
Those things that are engulfing all of us, all the time, in varying intensities. Naturally produced or not.
Just because you do not understand the world around you, doesn't mean you must be fearful of it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I mean, you read my journals right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC has guidelines on acceptable RF radiation exposure, as per frequency. Frequencies in the cell phone bands do not seem to show ionizing effects, however do show heating effects.
These days, the PEP wattage from standard mobile phones aren't high at all, compared to the older phones from the analog era. I have an emergency