Reminder: Cell phones do not cause cancer, nor do radio waves make you sick.

[TheWraith]

After once again seeing a big steaming load of pseudoscientific dung dropped here a little while ago, in the form of an article claiming that cell phone towers and radio waves will make you sick, I thought it was about that time for our regular reminder: they don't.

Every major scientific study has concluded that there is no tangible health risks from radio waves, in the same way that every major scientific study has shown that exercise is good for you and the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. This is not controversial at all. There are no real health risks associated with the average person's exposure to radio waves. And people who claim to be sickened by wireless devices have long since been debunked, since despite claiming immediate ill effects, they're unable to tell the difference between a wireless device which is transmitting and one which isn't even plugged in.

If cell phones actually caused cancer, with now something like 90 cell phones in the US per 100 people, science would dictate that cancer rates would have gone up, whereas they have actually gone DOWN slightly since cell phones became popular. Furthermore, if radio waves were actually in any way harmful, you'd think people would have experienced that from being near radio and TV stations which transmit at a hundred thousand watts, rather than cell phone towers which transmit at a few hundred.

The wild claims you hear about people being sickened by WiFi or getting rashes from cell phone towers are, simply put, junk. You might as well say that they were cursed by a witch--it has as much scientific validity. Either they're people who are hypochondriacs and don't understand that just because something exists doesn't make it dangerous, or they're simply misinformed.

[Ezlivin]

1. It's only what's ON the radio waves that makes one sick

Insert List of Right-Wing Bloviators Here

[rfranklin]

2. Radio waves carrying Rush Limbaugh have often made me vomit...

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

so your info is not totally correct.

[Amerigo Vespucci]

47. Radiohead for me. Vomiting within seconds of hearing Thom Yorke "sing" ANYTHING.

Uncontrollable, unrelenting. This is clearly not a fact-based post.

[zappaman]

48. +1 nt

[Archae]

3. Heck, I should have been dead 30 years ago.

I love red meat and sugar.

I love dairy products like cheese and ice cream.

[nebenaube]

4. It probably depends on

It probably depends on how much heavy metal one has in them and the frequency of the EMF... Like individuals who have hexavalent chromium bound to their dna from tainted H2O.

[guitar man]

30. I've got a lot of heavy metal in me

And I'm still alive and kickin'

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. Jury is not completely out with

Cell phones perse, and studies are still ongoing on that, but you knew that.

As to cell towers...mostly correct.

But cell phones themselves...I will wait...and it's believed not to be related to the radio waves by the way...

[jeff47]

10. *sigh*

Really.....cell phones using the same frequencies at much, much less power may be dangerous, but cell towers, even when standing right next to them, are not?

And it's not radio waves? What is it, aether?

[zappaman]

13. I join you with your *sigh*

Amazes me sometimes...

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Radiation from battery packages and a few other things

Sigh indeed.

To be clear from studies, not related to radio waves, either the towers or phones. Regardless, there is another danger on them clearly established by now...driving and talking/ texting.

The evidence for that other possible problem, operative word, possible, s still in the realm of statistics and epidemiology, will take a decade or two before we have anything one way or the other.

[jeff47]

25. No, the statistics are already in.

Cell phones have been widely distributed since the 1980s. Back then they were analog units that output far more power. So if there's some effect, early adopters would show signs. They have not.

Newer, digital units have been ubiquitous since the 1990s. They use less power, and thus would logically have less effect. Again, if there was some effect, a hell of a lot of people would show signs. They have not.

There has been ample time for statistics to show a danger, and they have consistently failed to do so.

Now, what sort of radiation do you think comes from a lithium-ion battery?

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. Sure they are... why the WHO is still waiting for them

Have a good day.

[zappaman]

43. *double sigh* n/t

[dionysus]

71. LOL, digging youself into a fact free hole again?

[SidDithers]

42. It's homeopathic EM radiation...nt

Sid

[SidDithers]

64. Yup...

Now, I'm off to have a homeopathic rum & coke before heading for bed.

Sid

[TheWraith]

61. Radiation from battery packages? Would you care to try that one again?

Because batteries don't "radiate."

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Tell you what, take the issue with the World Health Organization

and the National Institutes of Health. I take those people are not wearing tin foil, but as I said, the evidence is not fully in, even if you want to believe otherwise.

Did I mention Centers for Disease Control?

I guess the tinfoil market over those places is high and heavy.

Have a good day.

Will let you have the absolute last word on this... since you of course have read everything on this subject. I have not, but have read enough FROM THOSE tin foil wearing lunatics to know that this is not fully settled yet...

[zappaman]

22. Suffice it to say,

you will never convince sanctimonious know-it-alls, but feel free to try!

[retread]

29. Cell phones transmit the receive frequencies of the base station, while

that is in the same frequency band it is not the same frequency.

RF pressure falls as the square of the distance from the radiating source.
Most base station antennas are on 100ft or more towers.
That is one good thing about texting and the modern smart phones,
seldom do you see people hold them tightly to their skull while using them anymore.

[jeff47]

35. When talking about biological systems, the difference between 812MHz and 824MHz is irrelevant.

RF pressure falls as the square of the distance from the radiating source.

Yep. Are you operating under the illusion that no one lives near cell tower base stations? 'Cause I think they do, and have been for 30 years without showing any extra cancers.

[retread]

39. Antennas are mounted on at least 100 ft towers. You do the math.

[jeff47]

52. The point is the constant exposure, not the greater power output at the antenna. (nt)

[retread]

41. I know of no cell freq at 812. In the 850 band the offset is 45 mhz. Cripes I'm done arguing with

fools.

[jeff47]

51. Are you seriously trying to argue 800MHz is different from 850MHz in a biological system?

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 08:14 PM - Edit history (1)

And you're gonna call me a fool?

(Aside from something designed for a specific frequency, like chlorophyl-b)

[Mojorabbit]

46. Here is a good overview.

http://www.aan.com/elibrary/neurologynow/?event=home.showArticle&id=ovid.com:/bib/ovftdb/01222928-201107040-00007

[MrScorpio]

6. These are actually conspiracies that were hatched by the aluminum manufacturers

They really are a crafty lot.

[intaglio]

7. I agree wholly with you but

dosage is important.

Try standing in front of a powerful radar for 5 minutes ...

[wandy]

17. Spot on. I like this thread. Dosage is important....

Standing in front of even a modest 200 watt portable radar rig is roughly equivalent to drying a wet puppy in a microwave oven.

[Posteritatis]

18. And neither is in the same time zone as using a cellphone. (nt)

[Gibby]

8. Chemical saturated, hormone-soaked genetically modified highly processed food IS IS IS good for you

you you you you you you and others who are lost in blotto unsubstantiated scientific materialistic claims. But not for me.

?w=250&h=204

[Aerows]

21. Oh wow

Should I be concerned about the horns sprouting from my head from cell phones and my microwave?

I actually think they are kind of cool, but my doctor recommended that I lay off the Viagra even though I'm female.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. actually, you cannot support your data-free statement

Studies are mixed, and indeterminate--more research needed. You may be right, but of course there's no way for you to know that right now, so you probably shouldn't make claims for which you have no evidence.
--

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/cellphones

What do expert organizations conclude?

The International Agency for Research on Cancer Exit Disclaimer (IARC), a component of the World Health Organization, has recently classified radiofrequency fields as “possibly carcinogenic to humans,” based on limited evidence from human studies, limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and weak mechanistic evidence (from studies of genotoxicity, effects on immune system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, along with studies of the possible effects of radiofrequency energy on the blood-brain barrier).

The American Cancer Society Exit Disclaimer (ACS) states that the IARC classification means that there could be some risk associated with cancer, but the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal and needs to be investigated further. Individuals who are concerned about radiofrequency exposure can limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) states that the weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is responsible for regulating the safety of machines and devices that emit radiation (including cell phones), notes that studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones and health problems.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that, although some studies have raised concerns about the possible risks of cell phone use, scientific research as a whole does not support a statistically significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) concludes that there is no scientific evidence that wireless phone use can lead to cancer or to other health problems, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss.

[jeff47]

11. You might wanna read your post.

Here, lemme help:

studies reporting biological changes associated with radiofrequency energy have failed to be replicated and that the majority of human epidemiologic studies have failed to show a relationship between exposure to radiofrequency energy from cell phones and health problems.

scientific research as a whole does not support a statistically significant association between cell phone use and health effects.

there is no scientific evidence that wireless phone use can lead to cancer or to other health problems, including headaches, dizziness, or memory loss.

So...all of science says "no", but another group says "send us more money".

Boy that's sooooo mixed.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

12. nice cherrypicking, but inconclusive is inconclusive

I come from a place where precision and accuracy matter. Sorry if that doesn't mesh with what you need to believe (which, again, may be true, but has in no way been conclusively proven). I won't play the game of competing quotes from the very link I posted from which you cherry-picked your favorite sentences, but suffice to say, it would be trivial, if I were interested in trying to prove something to someone who has a non-science agenda.

[jeff47]

19. Please point to any actual inconclusive results

In your post there are people seeking more study, but they don't actually have inconclusive results. They assert there are inconclusive results, which more funding can resolve.

You know, if you're going to be claiming to argue from data, you should probably have some...you know....data.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

23. I see. So an inconclusive result means lying scientists just want more grant money.

I won't do your reading for you, but I will make it a little esaier. If you'd like to see inconclusive results, look at the first 3 groups listed in #6 at the link (or posted above). If you'd like to see results that purport to be more conclusive, and results that tend to indicate no harm from cell phones, look at the entries for FDA, CDC, and FCC.

Studies are inconclusive, but I think a reasonable conclusion can be drawn at this intermediate stage that if cell phones can cause cancer/glioma, they're at least not doing it at some epidemic level. Again, you don't get to make up your own facts out of convenience, and you'll not be able to dissuade me or any honest scientist with word games, unfounded accusations about scientists studying the matter, or wish projections on your part.

Your religion can be whatever you want it to be, and you can cling to any dogma you'd like, but please don't confuse those things with actual...you know...science.

[jeff47]

26. No, the lie is that there are inconclusive results.

The results are quite conclusive. That's what your FDA, CDC and FCC statements come from.

Again, you don't get to make up your own facts out of convenience,

Right back at ya. Google's right over there. Show me all these massive number of "inconclusive" studies. Btw, inconclusive doesn't mean "we got no result but it might still be there", which is what the vast majority of so called "inconclusive" studies actually show.

Your religion can be whatever you want it to be, and you can cling to any dogma you'd like, but please don't confuse those things with actual...you know...science.

Here's how science works:

Hypothesis: Cell phones cause cancer via (insert mechanism here)
Experiment: Mechanism doesn't cause cancer. At least, not until we're a few orders of magnitude higher than what cell phones can produce.
Result: Cell phones don't cause cancer via (mechanism).

That's been repeated for many, many different mechanisms. Including all the known, reasonable vectors.

But they haven't tested if cell phones cause cancer via fairy pixies. Or hyperspace camels. Or dark matter. So they can claim "more study is necessary" because those haven't been ruled out.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

27. did you just call me a liar?

Did you just call me a liar? I'd really like for you to have the courage of your convictions and say what you mean, right here.

[jeff47]

28. You appear to be quoting people.

Since you appear to have done no experiments personally, quoting others claiming "inconclusive" results would not be a lie on your part.

If you have done your own experiments, I look forward to the link to your paper.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

37. Don't much want to talk to you anymore, as courage of convictions aren't a part of your character.

But I will, at least for this post, and I do appreciate you giving me insight into your character, even though this was unintentional on your part. Read on.

You state that a lie has been told, so it was either told by me, or by scientists conducting studies. You've already told me that these studies don't claim to have inconclusive results (you're incorrect here, but bear with me). If, as you say, these studies don't claim that the results are inconclusive, then who is left to utter the "lie"? That would be me. Make friends with logic--it will serve you well. And don't accuse me of lying on a page that everyone can see and then attempt to be a worm and pretend you never said it.

Exaggeration also doesn't do much for the points you'd like to make. When I spoke of the handful organizations at the link I provided, I mentioned that three of them talked of the need for more study on the matter, so your insertion of "massive number of studies" was made up in your own predisposed head. Not a great idea if you're arguing about accuracy and precision, but it is a favorite tactic of some "news" organizations I can readily think of.

I can see that you like to snipe, and would like to prove me wrong, but you offer not one scintilla of information to suggest that you're right, about anything. On the other hand, I've made the most accurate and precise statement that can be made about possible health risks of cell phone usage: tests to date are inconclusive, and more studies need to be done. Moreover, if there is a risk of glioma and other cancers from cell phones, it does not appear to be great, not at some epidemic level, but again, more studies are needed. Yep, I said all that stuff...just go back and look if you're interested enough. That doesn't make me Albert Einstein, it just means that I'm paying attention, and I have opted to go with what has been stated, and not with whatever it is that compels you to need to believe conclusively in one particular way. Again, you're off in the realm of dogma and opinion, which is ok if that's what you're about, but it's not relevant in a conversation that deals with science and research.

Now onto the positions staked out by the first three organizations listed in our link.

International Agency for Research on Cancer:
Lyon, France, May 31, 2011 ‐‐ The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.

Conclusions
Dr Jonathan Samet (University of Southern California, USA), overall Chairman of the Working Group, indicated that "the evidence, while still accumulating, is strong enough to support a conclusion and the 2B classification. The conclusion means that there could be some risk, and therefore we need to keep a close watch for a link between cell phones and cancer risk."
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings," said IARC Director Christopher Wild, "it is important that additional research be conducted into the long‐term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands‐free devices or texting. "

----------
The American Cancer Society

"This report comes from a very credible group, and reaches reasonable conclusions about electromagnetic radiation from cellphones and other devices. It is critical that its findings be interpreted with great care. The working group reviewed a large number of studies and concluded that there was limited evidence that cell phones may cause glioma, a type of brain tumor that starts in the brain or spine. A 2B classification means that there could be some risk, but that the evidence is not strong enough to be considered causal, and needs to be investigated further. The bottom line is the evidence is enough to warrant concern, but it is not conclusive.


"The American Cancer Society does not independently judge the carcinogenicity of different exposures. Instead, we rely on IARC reviews of available evidence for our recommendations. At first glance, these new recommendations are very much in line with the American Cancer Society's current information that the evidence is limited, that further research is needed, and that there are things people who are concerned about radiofrequency exposure can do to limit their exposure, including using an ear piece and limiting cell phone use, particularly among children.


"Given that the evidence remains uncertain, it is up to each individual to determine what changes they wish to make, if any, after weighing the potential benefits and risks of using a cell phone.
-------------------
National Institutes of Health
The weight of the current scientific evidence has not conclusively linked cell phone use with any adverse health problems, but more research is needed.

[jeff47]

53. So sorry your alert fishing failed.

But please feel free to continue your personal attacks. They work sooooo much better than supplying the papers I've asked you to do.

So now that you've quoted people who haven't actually done the experiments, but who get funding by continuing to push for experiments, maybe this time you could link to a paper where they actually did an experiment.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

55. alert fishing? No. I was taking a measure of your character

I have that measure now, and I require nothing further from you. Thank you for replying with completely off-point garbage. It helps to show how thoroughly you've been discredited. Got any actual science you're able to speak about? Care to display any more ignorance about how research is conducted, and how studies are aggregated? Have you noticed that I've been speaking in terms of science, and you've been speaking in terms of what you feel "in your gut"? Sorry, but you came to the wrong table to discuss your intuition.

Thoroughly

Discredited.

[jeff47]

56. It's off point garbage to ask for the evidence you claim to have?

And you launch into personal attacks when asked to back up your assertions.

I don't think we've exposed the "character" you want to.

Still waiting for those studies that back up your claims....

[DisgustipatedinCA]

58. Goodbye. Come back when you're able to talk about all the points I've brought up

See all those words up above? They don't mean what you think they mean. As you grow and learn, you'll discover that precision in language really does matter in the realm of scientific inquiry. Until then, have a spiffy weekend.

[jeff47]

69. You still haven't posted the one thing I've been asking for

A link to a journal article with results that back up your position.

Then you started getting indignant and shouting more and more about how evil I am...for asking you to back up your assertions.

Back it up with some science, sweet cheeks.

[DCBob]

33. "possibly carcinogenic to humans"

and yes more research is needed. Often carcinogenic effects dont show up for decades of exposure.

[jeff47]

34. There has been more than a century of exposure.

RF isn't new. TV and Radio stations put out a lot more RF than a cell phone. People who lived near TV and Radio transmitters don't have a higher cancer rate.

Even if we pretend cell phones have some special magic, they started being widely used in the 1980s. Those early adopters have had them for ~30 years with no sign of cancer.

Even if we pretend it's special magic from digital cell phones, they have been extremely widely distributed for a little under 20 years. No sign of cancer.

[DCBob]

36. The fact there are some studies that have shown effect warrant further research.

Why is it necessary to come to a quick determination? You sound like a RWinger trying to dismiss global warming.

[jeff47]

50. Because there aren't studies that have shown effect in cell phones.

There are studies which have shown effect if you jack the wattage enough. Which we already knew, since lots of RF causes heating...as your microwave oven demonstrates.

There isn't a study that shows effects at power levels a cell phone can produce.

Why is it necessary to come to a quick determination?

100+ years is quick?

[DCBob]

60. Maybe Im wrong but I thought there were some studies that showed effect.

If every study has come back no effect then yes, I agree with you.

[retread]

38. Oh please. Inverse square law applies to electromagnetic radiation.

[jeff47]

49. Yes it does....did it occur to you that people lived near TV and radio transmitters?

50,000 watts at 50 yards is a lot more than 0.25 watts at the side of your head.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. And chemtrails

My personal favorite conspiracy theory. I have a friend who seeks shelter when she sees a chemtrail.

[wandy]

16. Upon request I will repost Uncle Jacks guaranteed chemtrail removal recipe. n/t

[wandy]

15. Now don't go telling that to our red footed, tin hat wearing friends....

You will upset them. They will rant and rave.
Don't you know them elf waves are gonna kill us.
It's a conspiracy, it's the goberment I tell you.
'Dim dar smarts meters gonna kill us with 'dem dar radio waves!
Save me Mr. Rosewater, that crazy 'lectricitys out to get me.

I post this only if you might need a good laugh.
Or if you want to see how nuts some folk are.

&feature=player_embedded

Oh, did I mention that I probably generate enough RF/EMF to be a nuisance to the neighbors TV reception.
And I aint dead yet.
Yet.

[NickB79]

24. If they collected the amount of data this quack claims they would

They'd need server farms the size of Manhattan to store it all

[wandy]

31. Not to mention how much RF/EMF that server farm would generate....

Ha ha.
This guy's mild.
I promise I'll post the next 'scientific proof' about dirty electricity.
Of course line voltage is dirty. It was even before cell phones and smart meters.
Businesses starting up, lightning, sun spots the occasional fried squirrel.
Usually don't make no never mind.
Unless you're into hi end Audio.
OK Ok, I have a line filter.
It's not life threatening.

Ahhhhh. But if you got a good laugh from it, it was worth posting.

[DefenseLawyer]

32. The voices in my head beg to differ!

You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it?

[Canuckistanian]

44. Show me the dead radio workers is my response

People like me who have been exposed, nay SURROUNDED by high-frequency RF for most of my career (I'm a radio research tech).

Intense radio waves heat you up, that's it. And it requires MEGAWATTS of power at close range to do that. It's just common sense. You wouldn't stick your head in a microwave oven, so stay away from high-power transmitters. And I don't even consider Cell Phone base station transmitters high-power.

I'd like to see a study of people who live near REALLY high power transmitters like commercial FM stations or even worse, AM stations. If they're dropping like flies, then I'll consider radio waves dangerous.

[Egalitarian Thug]

45. I find it amusing that the deniers are just as fervent in their faith-based claims as the panickers.

The only indisputable truth we have regarding cancer is that we do not know what causes it, period. There are strong corollaries between certain activities and genes, there are mountains of data and statistical analysis, but any competent oncologist will tell you that still no one knows what causes it.

Personally, I think it is most likely excessive stress and our crazy lifestyle certainly causes lots of stress.

[jeff47]

54. We're supposed to happily let woo replace science?

Do some good science to show it, and I'll happily listen to claims of danger from cell phones. The problem is the people claiming danger or ability to sense EM haven't done that.

The only indisputable truth we have regarding cancer is that we do not know what causes it, period.

We know exactly how a lot of cancers are caused. For example, mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure. Not all of them, no, but lots of them.

[Egalitarian Thug]

66. You are simply wrong.

From the causes page of the Mesothelioma Alliance (causes).

"While the exact causal nature between asbestos and pericardial mesothelioma is not known,"

The point is that the real scientists are concerned with accuracy and discovery, while the keyboard skeptics are concerned with appearances and dismissing ideas that do not fit their narrative. Which is the entire point of this OP, a snotty dismissal of other people.

[jeff47]

68. In today's lesson, you learn that not everything on the internet is true or up-to-date.

That's why in threads like this I keep asking people to post their papers proving the evils of RF

There's been some large developments in the last 4 years. I'd bother digging them up, but from this thread it's clear you're far more interested in being a "centrist" so you can tut-tut at everyone else.

[Egalitarian Thug]

70. As I said, amusing. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

62. There are PLENTY of scientific methods that can link activities or substances to cancer

And the foremost among them is statistics. If radio is even a TINY bit dangerous, then it would easily show up in mortality or disease distribution studies.

And MANY studies (and meta-studies) have been DESIGNED to look for just this eventuality and come up inconclusive.

So as far as I'm concerned, exposure to normal levels of RF are about as dangerous as say, gardening. Don't believe me? Then show me the numbers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. Fully agreed

What worries researchers workng on the research studies (statistical analysis and all that jazz) are for real long term exposure...my niece's generation, who started using them pesky toys young, I dare say they use them more often than I do...hence them stats still have some time to come in.

Why NIH, CDC, WHO and a few other lunatics, are still waiting for that to come in.

I dare say for you and me it's academic, and I hope when the data comes in, it remains academic.

Of course land fills and batteries, don't get me started. that is a hole different story.

[Egalitarian Thug]

67. I'm very relieved that you are not an Oncologist, and hope you are not making a living

in any other scientific endeavor.

[Odin2005]

57. Radio waves do not have the energy to damage DNA. That is a fact.

Remember, that radio wave photons are the lowest energy photons there are. Visible light is much more energetic.