Thread: Cellphones and Cancer: What's the Verdict?

Looks like there might be some truth behind the hysteria.

WHO says cell phone use possibly carcinogenic | Reuters

Kinda scary, actually....

The same level as coffee. I guess coffee drinkers who use cell phones are in big trouble. Luckily I don't use either.

Enjoy your tumours, can'tbebotheredtotalkfacetofacefags.

This is nonsense.
I spoke on a cellphone for nine hours yesterday and I snififfle snorkel poo brain tumors!

What sombrero!?

Hmm, perhaps now's the time to look into market applications for my lead-core cell phone cover...

Reading this made me feel less paranoid about cellphones.

What in the article made you say that there may be some truth behind the hysteria? All it says is maybe it could cause cancer, it didn't give any kind of evidence or reason why.

The verdict's still out.

Originally Posted by stonedape

The verdict's still out.

That is the exact reason I so deliberately used the word "might." That they have been looking into such a hot topic for so long, but are still inconclusive about it - yet concerned enough to officially label it as "possibly carcinogenic" - kind of worries me. It's one thing when you're just thinking about yourself, but when you have a 10 year old daughter (like I do), who is just about at the age where she's going to start using cellphones pretty heavily, it's something that shouldn't be completely ignored...verdict or not.

Hmmm, I see why if you have kids. I;m not too worried though. Theres other stuff that is carcinogentic out there that people use and don't get cancer, my grandpa smoked 2 packs a day and he;s the only one of my grandparents not to die of cancer. I think as long as you stay healthy your probably gonna be ok.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Hmmm, I see why if you have kids. I;m not too worried though. Theres other stuff that is carcinogentic out there that people use and don't get cancer, my grandpa smoked 2 packs a day and he;s the only one of my grandparents not to die of cancer. I think as long as you stay healthy your probably gonna be ok.

I know somebody who smoked and didn't get cancer = PROOF THAT SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER.

Seriously why do people think saying stuff like this is smart? It's so inane. Only yesterday I saw somebody on DV boasting that they don't do flu jabs but they're yet to die of flu, with an insufferably smug attitude of "coincidence? I THINK NOT!".

The natural incidence of lung cancer is pretty low, but if you smoke you have something like a 1/4 chance of dying from it. All anecdotal bullshit aside: this is the non-negotiable, statistical fact of the matter.

Originally Posted by Xei

I know somebody who smoked and didn't get cancer = PROOF THAT SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER.

Seriously why do people think saying stuff like this is smart? It's so inane. Only yesterday I saw somebody on DV boasting that they don't do flu jabs but they're yet to die of flu, with an insufferably smug attitude of "coincidence? I THINK NOT!".

The natural incidence of lung cancer is pretty low, but if you smoke you have something like a 1/4 chance of dying from it. All anecdotal bullshit aside: this is the non-negotiable, statistical fact of the matter.

I didn't say it doesn't cause cancer, I said it does(is a carcinogen) and that doing something that can cause cancer doesn't mean you will get cancer. My point is that if you don't wanna get cancer, take steps that WILL protect your health like eating healthy and excercising rather than being paranoid about everything and not using your cell phone. There's a healthy way to smoke and an unhealthy way to. My grandpa wasn't healthy, but he never got cancer either.

I really don't have any clue what you're trying to say. There's a healthy way to smoke? What, one which your grandfather subscribed to, I presume? By smoking 2 packs a day?

Never get a job in the teaching profession, please.

Originally Posted by Xei

I really don't have any clue what you're trying to say. There's a healthy way to smoke? What, one which your grandfather subscribed to, I presume? By smoking 2 packs a day?

Never get a job in the teaching profession, please.

No, the healthy way to smoke is to smoke on occasion. I think it was kinda obvious that since I said he was unhealthy he didn't smoke in a healthy manner. If you smoke 1 cigarette every year and you are otherwise healthy(eat right, excercise) it's very unlikely you will get cancer or have other resperitory problems unless you live in New York.

Other healthy smoking tips: Use a pipe. Or smoke American spirits or some other kind of additive free tobacco.

Do you never eat junk food? It's the same thing, all things in moderation.

Maybe you should try to understand what people are saying instead of thinking of reasons why they are wrong.

And I already am a teacher by the way, music.

Originally Posted by stonedape

Hmmm, I see why if you have kids. I;m not too worried though. Theres other stuff that is carcinogentic out there that people use and don't get cancer, my grandpa smoked 2 packs a day and he;s the only one of my grandparents not to die of cancer. I think as long as you stay healthy your probably gonna be ok.

It's a game of chance. All this means is that your grandpa has incredible luck.

Regarding the OP, it's just a good reminder not to spend too much time with your phone attached to your ear. Luckily I generally hate talking on the phone.

This is all very premature, and given the extremely weak nature of the evidence, I would suggest that WHO are being somewhat irresponsible. The report itself admits that there's not much evidence, nor is the statistical confidence particularly high, as evidenced by the nebulous term "possibly carcinogenic", a term so vague that you could include almost anything under that label.

Furthermore, many other devices use similar parts of the EM spectrum for their operation, several that have a far higher output than mobile phones. Not to mention there's no known mechanism by which such radiation can cause cancer, unlike ionising radiation, which can cause DNA to mutate, or chemicals such as benzene (and similar compounds) which bind to DNA and alter it.

More research on the subject never hurts, but making these kinds of statements on such tentative evidence is not going to help.

There have been a lot of studies on this and they've failed conclusively show it causes cancer. So chances are it's not particularly carcinogenic, if at all. So I see no reason to worry.

Wiki had this on its front page in the "in the news" section... until today. It seems to have vanished, interesting...

Why I’m (still) not worried about my cell phone hurting my brain | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

I’m getting lots of notes from people about the latest press release from the World Health Organization, saying there is a "possible" link between cell phones and brain cancer. My first reaction was, "Seriously?" This keeps popping up every now and again, but this was the first time I had heard it from a group as big as WHO.

The reason for that initial reaction was that I’ve read about lots of studies showing no link at all between cell phones and health issues (besides quadrupling your odds of a car accident if you drive while using your phone), so my reaction was one of fair skepticism. I’d be surprised if a strong connection had been found.

Turns out, it seems, that’s the right call. My Discover Magazine co-blogger Ed Yong explains why on the Cancer Research UK website. Basically, the WHO put cell phones into the Group 2B category, meaning they are "possibly carcinogenic to humans". Aiiiieee! Sounds scary… except that word "possibly", it turns out, needs to be understood a little more quantitatively.

As Ed shows, the graph showing the results from several tests investigating the links between cell phones and cancer shows that any connection is very weak, and honestly cannot be statistically distinguished from no connection at all. Of course, it’s impossible to rule it out, so there’s that word "possibly". From looking at the graph, though, I’d put the odds at being very, very low. As Ed says in his post, "It means that there is some evidence linking mobile phones to cancer, but it is too weak to make any strong conclusions."

I poked around some news sites (like CNN and MSNBC), and while they aren’t over-hyping it, in my opinion they aren’t being entirely fair, either. The claims I’ve seen from people linking cell phones to brain cancer make it seem as if the connection is obvious, but the results from the WHO make it clear that’s not the case. There might be a connection, but if there is it’s not terribly clear. I’ll note the studies only appear to cover a time base of ten years; it’s not possible to know what happens after, say 15 or 20 years. Even then, other environmental factors dominate such studies, making teasing out a weak signal very difficult.

You may also wish to note what other things are categorized as Group 2B possible carcinogens, including gasoline, pickled vegetables, and (GASP!) coffee.

My opinion here is that while a link between cell phones and brain cancer cannot be ruled out, without a strong correlation and a numerical statement about the odds, it seems very unlikely to me that such a connection is something to worry about. I’m far more worried about the dingus in traffic in front of me gabbing to his friend on his phone and causing an accident than I am about me getting brain cancer from my own.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/significant.png

If the waves emitted by cell phones can supposedly cause brain cancer because you hold them so close to your head... why aren't they believed to cause cancer in your ear or skin or skull? Or in your hand for that matter? Is there any biological reason to believe that brain tissue is somehow more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of cell phones than the tissues that are actually closer to the cell phone? It just doesn't add up.

Originally Posted by DuB

If the waves emitted by cell phones can supposedly cause brain cancer because you hold them so close to your head... why aren't they believed to cause cancer in your ear or skin or skull? Or in your hand for that matter? Is there any biological reason to believe that brain tissue is somehow more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of cell phones than the tissues that are actually closer to the cell phone? It just doesn't add up.

Maybe the waves from the cell phone interact with only the brain because it interacts with the electrical activity taking place in the brain?

It is a possibility that cell phones cause cancer but what doesn't these days?

What about the electrical activity taking place in your hand muscles? What the hell does electrical activity even have to do with radio waves and cancer in the first place?

Mobile phones use microwaves, I believe. This actually does make the head a fraction of a degree hotter. However, it's thought that waves of this relatively large wavelength cannot cause cancers. Only shorter wavelengths, hence with higher energies, such as UV, have enough oomph to mutate your DNA upon absorption.

This actually does make the head a fraction of a degree hotter.

Dielectric heating

Originally Posted by Pan

It's a game of chance. All this means is that your grandpa has incredible luck.

Regarding the OP, it's just a good reminder not to spend too much time with your phone attached to your ear. Luckily I generally hate talking on the phone.

I wouldn't call it luck.
Some people are less susceptible to cancer.

I hate talking on the phone too! I was just saying this the other day and nobody understands it lol
I don't really know why, but if I'm talking for longer than a minute or so I just start getting frustrated.
Maybe it's fucking with my brain activity o.O (Joke)

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Looks like there might be some truth behind the hysteria.

WHO says cell phone use possibly carcinogenic | Reuters

Kinda scary, actually....

No.

Most people don't understand this scientific talk.

Anything is possible. They had two studies which said there is a very weak link, which both came from some place in Sweden, and the rest all said there is no link.
But they still say it's possible, because anything is possible.
They should have realised that laymen don't use this word the same way scientists do.
They should have simply said "It's highly and incredibly unlikely and the collective evidence indicates that they do not cause cancer".

And as the comic that blueline posted indicates, if you do enough studies, even if there is no causal link, one is going to show a very very slight link.
They have figured out that 1/20 studies will show a slightly higher link.

Originally Posted by tommo

And as the comic that blueline posted indicates, if you do enough studies, even if there is no causal link, one is going to show a very very slight link.
They have figured out that 1/20 studies will show a slightly higher link.

I think you missed the point of the comic. 1/20 statistical tests will be "false positives" by design, for the simple reason that 5% is the most commonly used (but ultimately arbitrary) cutoff point for determining that a set of experimental results are too unlikely to have obtained by chance alone. If we used a criterion of 10%, it would follow that 1/10 tests would be false positives. There's nothing to figure out.

Originally Posted by DuB

I think you missed the point of the comic. 1/20 statistical tests will be "false positives" by design, for the simple reason that 5% is the most commonly used (but ultimately arbitrary) cutoff point for determining that a set of experimental results are too unlikely to have obtained by chance alone. If we used a criterion of 10%, it would follow that 1/10 tests would be false positives. There's nothing to figure out.

I don't get how that differs from what I said.

"slightly higher link" was a horrible choice of words. But besides that.