Pittsburgh Cancer Center Warns of Cell Phone Risks 555
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!"
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.
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.
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
But cell phones transmit at the same frequency as the microwave oven
Hell no. If they did, your neighbor's Microwave oven would cause awful disruption if they used it when you tried to use your cell phone.
Microwave ovens operate at 2.45Ghz.
Cell phone carriers operate on licensed frequencies well outside the 2.45Ghz range.
Your typical GSM bands fall in between 400mhz and 2000mhz. Your highest frequency 3G transmission is 2100mhz.
In the US, 850mhz and 1900mhz are the frequency ranges used with GSM.
Now your cordless (non-cell phone), or your 802.11(b/g) unlicensed Wi-Fi that operate on unlicensed frequencies, are in the 2.4 Ghz range, which is the closest to the frequencies microwave ovens use.
That doesn't mean the frequencies or waveforms (amplitude, and other characterists) are exactly the same though, of course they are not!
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
Microwave ovens typically work [wikipedia.org] at 2.45GHz.
In the US, the frequencies used [wikipedia.org] are generally pretty far away from that. A meter made to show microwave oven leakage (which I suspect is the context here) is in no way applicable to a common cellular telephone.
Furthermore, such technologies as CDMA and TDMA are anything but steady in their output power. Neither a simple meter made to accurately read a steady signal nor one which is designed to read peaks will give a very good portrayal of what is really going on, as they lack the temporal resolution needed to show how these signals really behave.
So it's the wrong tool for the job. It as about as high of a bullshit factor as someone looking at a stone and saying, "This rock is too heavy for me to lift, therefore it must weigh more than 60 tons," all without ever actually trying to lift it.
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?
Re: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?
This reminds me of the Big Tobacco lobbyst from "Thank you for smoking" - almost verbatim what he said to support his pro-smoking argument. It turns out, smoking really is bad for your health, and it also turns out that it's wise to err on the safe side. In general.
Re:So, he's a doctor? A radio safety expert? (Score:5, Informative)
1) not being paid IS NOT a qualification - it suggests but does not prove impartiality
2) same as above because it is the same thing in different words
personally, I think there will be less hoopla made about the dangers once a decent replacement technology comes out - then they will use this fear of radiation as reason to switch. First, RF is non-ionizing radiation - like the radiation of an ultrasound machine.
Also, to answer the comment about "burying the data" - the medical literature is full of research on this very topic - ipsilateral gliomas are associated with cell phone use in a metastudy analysis
http://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/article.jsp?article_id=ijo_32_5_1097 [spandidos-...ations.com]
The problem with most studies of this type is that they are case controlled and there are obvious recall biases at play. I don't think this will be easy to determine by most people. The fact that the radiation is non-ionizing should put most people to ease.
some more from pub med:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18063591?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum [nih.gov]
Here is a controlled trial in rats - only issue i have is distance to localized tissue - if u standardize to the weight of the animal, human tissue at closest exposure receives more radiation + many people use them long enough to heat/burn local tissue. That is a completely different effect than low heat non-ionizing radiation.
You will notice consistent lack of power in the studies described.... hope this is useful stuff.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17903030?ordinalpos=16&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum [nih.gov]
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.
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cell phones generally transmit at 300 mW in normal cases, and can boost to 3 W (3000 mW) in bad reception cases.
Not true for modern digital handheld phones. Do you realize the battery you'd need to run a 3W RF transmitter for any useful length of time? It sure as heck isn't one of those tiny lithium-polymer jobs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the implication is that it's 3W peak, not 3W continuous.
Re:On the bright side... (Score:4, Insightful)
I haven't seen any broadcast engineers (who often spend days at a time at multi-megawatt sites -- granted on different frequency bands, but a MUCH higher RF output, hundreds if not thousands of orders of magnitude higher than anything a cell phone user puts themselves through -- dropping dead of cancer.
Same for the generation of microwave engineers who worked on the AT&T "Long Lines" networks and built a little company once known as MCI (Microwave Communications, Inc.), now Verizon Business...
Or the generation of cell site TECHS who work on the much higher gain and higher power cellular site transmitters...
All of those folks are at MUCH higher risk from RF energy than a typical cell phone user, and there's NO statistical evidence that they're adversely affected.
Anecdotally, I do know one broadcast engineer who says he never used birth control during his time in broadcast, and only started having kids naturally with his wife after he left the business. But I also personally know another (Catholic) RF engineer who has six or seven (I lost count) kids, and he's always worked in the industry.
So... whatever. The point is... there's people (large numbers of them) that could be used for studies of how cellular phone type RF frequencies at high power levels might be dangerous out there... and none of that demographic are dropping like flies.
So your concerns are likely quite unfounded.
Do I believe that different people are differently affected by RF? Yes. Do we fully understand all of the effects of RF? No. But is the risk significantly higher for cancer or anything else for the flea-power cellular microwave frequencies? No.
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.
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Insightful)
A dangerous amount being?
"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."
no, you don't.
"I don't have more detail than that, but in line with that."
so no actual facts? great.
"Even though the articles have been kept out of refereed medical journals, it's no secret."
Ah, it's all part of a grand conspiracy. I see.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
True, poor antennas means you need to use more power to get the same effect, but the effect is radiating RF. It will take the same amount of radiated RF to reach the tower no matter how efficient the antenna is. (Directionality is a problem even with good antennas they all have nulls.) You seem to be implying that when a phone uses more power because of a poor antenna, so more power is radiated, which is silly. It's just extra heat in the phone and power from the battery.
Then again, even if an antenna is too small for the wavelength being transmitted, it can be loaded to compensate for nearly all the problem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And while Portland is cleaner, Pittsburgh looks greener.
It's our dirty Ohio neighbors who send us the polluted air. That's why the air quality is still an 'F' in farm country, over an hour north of here.
You're right about the denial. But it's because you can't see the pollution. 30 years ago this city was disgusting, black smog everywhere. Today it looks gorgeous.
For most people seeing is believing.
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]
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Informative)
We still have fewer sunny days then Seattle though.
a friend of mine called it..... (Score:3, Informative)
Trying to come up with a justification for seeking some grant money?
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
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!
Too bad it didn't apply to cigarettes... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).
I would really like to see some more recent studies on this subject. I see a lot of reference, that they always take us to other references and so on. And yes, I know about "WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control" and all that other crap. Yes, exposure to tobacco can cause all that. I don't doubt smoking wre
Re:Too bad it didn't apply to cigarettes... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of health related issues, second hand smoke is annoying and disgusting if you do not smoke yourself.
So is having to listen to music other people play in public places, either with their cell phones or in their cars, having to listen to loud (telephone) conversations, etc..
Why don't you ban alcohol? Why don't you fine someone who hasn't showered?
I find it disgusting when you eat meat, I find it annoying and disgusting when people go hunting, I find it disgusting when women dress like sluts, and so on...
You people just want to ban something for the sake of banning something because you want it your way and
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So is having to listen to music other people play in public places, either with their cell phones or in their cars,
Annoying but they rarely stick around
having to listen to loud (telephone) conversations, etc..
Annoying when it's hard to escape, like on the train
Why don't you ban alcohol?
Been tried -- see prohobition
Why don't you fine someone who hasn't showered?
That's a delicate one. I've been in some meetings in a small non-ventilated conference room. Talk about wanting a meeting to end or just wanting to die.
I find it disgusting when you eat meat,
I'll order vegetarian if I'm with you. No problem.
I find it annoying and disgusting when people go hunting,
That's out of sight, out of mind unless you're living in one of the hardcore hunting states. Then, you're outnumbered. Deal with it.
I find it disgusting when women dress like sluts, and so on...
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
You people just want to ban something for the sake of banning something because you want it your way and that's the right way.
Sometimes the majority or the cu
Your right to blow your smoke ends at my face. (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of the things you list are in fact illegal, if rarely enforced (such as playing excessively loud music in your car). But that's largely irrelevant.
Most of the things you list, unlike smoking, do not cause physical discomfort (like coughing and irritated eyes). This puts it in a class beyond mere annoyance and into causing deleterious physical effects to people.
There are things that annoy and things that cause pain to people. Those things in the latter category are not your right. Your right to swin
Re:Too bad it didn't apply to cigarettes... (Score:4, Interesting)
*Woosh*
The bans on smoking in public places are specifically because of the health issues. None of the other annoying and/or disgusting activities you've mentioned have anywhere near the health risks associated with them.
Yes, some of them pose health risks when combined with other activities (Cell phones while driving, drinking while driving, or on the job) and are illegal or banned accordingly. Even the merely disgusting or annoying ones are either frowned upon or actively discouraged is specific situations.
For most of the smokers I know, the bans on smoking are no more inconvenient than having to go to the loo to take a dump.
The American Lung Association (Score:5, Informative)
.
In the days before smoking was banned in hospitals I made the transition from the vistor in the waiting room to the patient in the ER - acute asthmatic attack.
Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet [lungusa.org]
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General [surgeongeneral.gov] [July 2006]
Bulls--t. (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, there is NO absolute proof of the so called "second hand smoking" (passive smoking). Everything said about it is based on a single, very questionable report release way back (70s ? 80s ?).
Would you like to hear some more recent studies? No? Too bad.
A study examining the method by which SHS triggers allergy attacks. [jimmunol.org]
Demonstration of how SHS promotes the growth of existing lung cancers. [nih.gov]
How SHS impedes the ability of fibrolasts to respond to a wound. [biomedcentral.com]
The last one in particular contains a great number of references by which you can better educate yourself. Penn & Teller can go to hell for all I care; the data is out there for people who don't get all their scientific information from comedians.
Try spending 5 minutes on scholar.google.com before blathering about "no studies" and "no research."
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.
Re:wrong, too (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that our current understanding of biology gives no physical mechanism through which non-ionizing microwave wavelength radiation can damage DNA to cause cancer.
Maybe that understanding will change at some point in the future - biology and genetics have been developing quickly in recent decades, but in the mean time we have no reason to be worried, compared to all the other risks we take in a day.
It's anti-science to go to fear-mongering due to ignorance simply because there's a technology involved. That's not just being cautious, that's being reckless in a non-conventional direction.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention that there's already been a few generations of folks who work in much higher RF fields at these same frequencies (including cell site technicians) who aren't dropping like flies.
RF at 800 MHz through 3 GHz isn't exactly new technology. Seen any old AT&T Long Lines guys growing any extra body parts as they head into retirement?
People are idiots. They'll look you straight in the eye and tell you their cell phone is killing them, while talking for hours on a 900 MHz, 2.4 GHz, or 5.8 GHz co
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...to say nothing of potential economic consequences?
What about the economic damages if cell phones ARE found to cause cancer in the long? AFAIK, if that turns out to be the case, than the economic damages (shortened life span, medical costs) are for the users and society as a whole. I don't see why potential economic consequences which could affect a limited number of companies should outweigh the potential economic consequences for hundreds of millions of users.
Now, you won't hear me saying that cell phones cause adverse health effects (such as cancer), bu
Re:Holy crap I RTFA... (Score:4, Interesting)
Follow the money, especially with university studies- they're almost always funded by industry these days. Sadly.
The only ones normally wanting to fund such university studies are cellular providers and equipment manufacturers. They're only going to fund studies that are very likely to show "no conclusive result" because that gives them plenty of deniability. The more studies they can fund to get no results, the more deniability.
Same strategy used by every other corporation.
It would be good to get some actual cancer foundations involved (who don't have cellular execs on their boards) and fund some unbiased studies to put this to rest.
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
yep (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yep (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yep (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Do what I do! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Do what I do! (Score:4, 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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Not 1 watt! Try 350mw! (Score:4, Informative)
Most cell phones are less than 1/2 watt. Pretty impressive, if you consider the coverage cell networks have. The standard powerlevels for Bluetooth are:
100 milliwatt
2.5 milliwatt
1 milliwatt
Re:Not 1 watt! Try 350mw! (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong - GSM max power output is 2W (Score:3, Informative)
Average power is lower, but peak is 2W, lowest power is 20mW. The handset varies its output power depending on how it's being received by the base station. In a bad location, the base station would command the handset to increase power.
http://www.techmind.org/gsm/ [techmind.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I think people should just have wired headsets connected to their phone, which is held at a safe distance by a ten foot pole. And it's not just because I'm a share-holder in a company that makes 10 foot poles.
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.
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:4, Funny)
I'm allergic to those :(
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! :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But BT uses 2.4 Mhz which is a harmonic of the water atom. Anything with water in it will tend to heat up when exposed.
Cell phones are not.
BT could be worse than Cells and you wireless phone at home could be very bad.
Over all I am not to worred about any of it.
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:4, Informative)
...
Also, IIRC, the concern is cancer caused by ionizing radiation, not thermal damage cause by exciting harmonics in water.
Cell phone radiation isn't ionizing at all, though. (assuming yours doesn't have plutonium batteries or something like that) So, if the issue is ionizing radiation cell phones should be completely safe. TFA hints that cell phone usage stimulates the secretion of stress hormones and messes with the blood brain barrier by some as-yet-unknown mechanism.
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.
Re:Wireless headsets work (Score:4, Funny)
Thus making the vibrate mode virtually useless.
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: (Score:2)
About those people driving while on the phone... I somehow doubt that they will be worried about their health and safety all of the sudden.
Re:I'd go for it. (Score:5, Funny)
If people drove on my lawn I'd be pissed off too,
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From stories I have seen he is sighting a correlative pattern between cellphone use and brain cancer. There is no causative relationship explained. There may be something to this, then again if we were to chart the amount of brain cancer to the number of people exposed to wireless hot spots we would see a similar correlation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, diseases cannot exist until they are formally diagnosed. And, in the same vein, advance
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).
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.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Solution: voicepipe headset (Score:2)
For example: http://products.mercola.com/blue-tube-headset/ [mercola.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Basically a tube to transmit sound instead of wires.
Combine this with a Faraday cage around the phone and I think you'll be totally safe.
The real question is (Score:4, Insightful)
If somebody so high up in the Cancer Center quotes non-existing non-peer-reviewed (and generally biased) unpublished research in justifying "cellphones will give you cancer" announcements, what can you expect from the rest of the Center?
Better go elsewhere. Like Houston...
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.
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sorry I don't have the reference as it was a long time ago, but there was a dire warning about being in front of VHF yagi's operating at 144Mhz or so. Although 900Mhz might be the most absorbant at the skin level, the VHF frequencies penetrate into the body.
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.
Physical mechanism? (Score:4, Interesting)
Photons of EM waves at 900MHz have tiny energy compared to bonding energy of molecules and compared to ionization energy of atoms. Radio waves simply can't cause chemical changes in the human body.
Amount of heat absorbed (cell phones emit ~1-2W, only small fraction is absorbed) is also insignificant compared to the amounts human body produces. I think statistical fluke in their data is most likely reason for their conclusion.
Mechanical vs. epidemiological (Score:3, Insightful)
Most lay people--and many doctors, seemingly--seem to think health science is only conducted epidemiologically. They do not understand that well-understood mechanical theory can be sufficient to disprove a causative link between correlated data...especially if it is poorly correlated.
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!
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.
Shielding is snake oil. (Score:3, Interesting)
Most phones support external antenna hookups. Just start taking the rubber piece off by the antenna stub that is round, about the size of the O on the keyboard.
There are plenty of snake oil salesmen ready to steal your money with "shielding."
http://www.cellphonedefense.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=5073 [cellphonedefense.com]
Same category as this crap:
http://www.apexcellular.com/antennas.htm [apexcellular.com]
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.
No, you must be clueless (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No, you must be clueless (Score:5, Funny)
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...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I actually did RTFA, and it's just some nutjob who wants to get his name in the papers.
Some gems:
Herberman is basing his alarm on early unpublished data. He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now - especially when it comes to children.
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.
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.
Joshua E. Muscat of Penn State University, who has studied cancer and cell phones in other research projects partly funded by the cell phone industry, said there are at least a dozen studies that have found no cancer-cell phone link. He said a Swedish study cited by Herberman as support for his warning was biased and flawed.
"We certainly don't know of any mechanism by which radiofrequency exposure would cause a cancerous effect in cells. We just don't know this might possibly occur," Muscat said.
Joe Farren, a spokesman for the CTIA-The Wireless Association, a trade group for the wireless industry, said the group believes there is a risk of misinforming the public if science isn't used as the ultimate guide on the issue.
"When you look at the overwhelming majority of studies that have been peer reviewed and published in scientific journals around the world, you'll find no relationship between wireless usage and adverse health affects," Farren said.
"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.
Re:I must be a scientist... (Score:5, Insightful)
That article in New Scientist was supported by a manufacturer of those little EM blockers a few years ago. We have our own testing equipment and have thoroughly disproved their findings. While some of the EM field couples to the headset, it only does so for the first 0-3cm (depends on location of headset). In our measurements, the EM absorption from a wired headset is 0. The EM absorption from Bluetooth is 1/100th of that from a mobile phone. The only increase in radiation absorption from using a headset occurs when the phone is placed next to the body while using the headset since muscle mass near the phone (heart, leg, etc) absorbs microwave energy at 4 times the rate as your brain does.
RF engineers can only demonstrate how much radiation can be measured at a certain point within your head. We cannot show any medical causality without decades of statistics. All the medical studies that have been published over the past 10 years are largely inconclusive (there is a ratio of 50:50 for "no harm" vs "bad"). In addition, a 2-3 year study cannot effectively be used to predict a 20-30 year trend--especially with microwave energy since the effects are largely due to the intensity of the radiation.
And while some of us may place faith in the FCC, they know very little as well. For example, the FCC regulation specifies that the EM absorption is measured and certified in the brain tissue next to the users' ears. Since the EM absorption is a near field effect (within 1-2 cm), the cell phone manufacturers (including the Apple iPhone) started placing their antennas at the bottom of the handset. So while your brain is now absorbing much less energy, your lymph nodes are getting much more and the manufacturers can pass the FCC certification.....
In the end it is personal choice--do you "feel" safer using a headset. Are you ultra-paranoid--don't use a phone, stand next to a microwave oven, live in a shield box like some people in Northern Scandinavia do (they believe they are allergic to electricity).