“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer
Source: Mother Jones
It's the moment we've all been dreading. Initial findings from a massive federal study, released on Thursday, suggest that radio-frequency (RF) radiation, the type emitted by cellphones, can cause cancer.
The findings from a $25 million study, conducted over two-and-a-half years by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), showed that male rats exposed to two types of RF radiation were significantly more likely than unexposed rats to develop a type of brain cancer called a glioma, and also had a higher chance of developing the rare, malignant form of tumor known as a schwannoma of the heart.
The radiation level the rats received was "not very different" from what humans are exposed to when they use cell phones, said Chris Portier, former associate director of the NTP, who commissioned the study.
<snip>
The NTP first decided to investigate the carcinogenicity of cellphone radiation in 2001, partly in response to epidemiological studies showing a correlation between gliomas and cellphone use. Some of the studies even showed that the cancers were ipsilateral—meaning they tended to appear on the same side of the head where users held their phones. But other epidemiological studies haven't found links between cancer and cellphones.
Read more: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/05/federal-study-links-cell-phone-radiation-cancer
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Seriously people will not give up their cellphone no matter what! Hell most still are driving cars daily even though they are killing us all!!!
Thanks for sharing though!
cstanleytech
(27,247 posts)on the phones but the downside is phones will probably end up being alot heavier.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)cstanleytech
(27,247 posts)external antenna but either way something will have to be done or the cellphone manufacturers are going to see a heck of alot of lawsuits.
SCantiGOP
(14,328 posts)except everyone around you can hear both sides of the conversation, but at least the device is not next to your brain.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Kind of hard to reach a cell tower several miles away with that power level.
When I was I the Air Farce, we used to sleep behind the 50-100KW power amplifiers in the same frequency range on our 16 hour overnight shifts because it would be the only warm place in the building in the winter on top of the mountain. None of us ever had any problems.
cstanleytech
(27,247 posts)that you connect to via Bluetooth which then connects you to the cell tower.
yourpaljoey
(2,166 posts)There is one unit where when they say "no user serviceable parts inside"-
they aren't kidding.
cstanleytech
(27,247 posts)reduce it to a safe level before I would feel comfortable rendering an opinion.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)...Most importantly, an integrated FCC-certified lab tested radiation-shielding foil not only deflects and absorbs RF, ELF and Thermal radiation to greatly reduce your exposure, but it also blocks RFID signals, so that hackers cannot steal your credit card information by scanning it from afar. And no, the case will not affect phone or battery performance.
CELL:
http://www.safesleevecases.com/pages/frequently-asked-questions
http://www.safesleevecases.com/blogs/news/16597265-shielding-effectiveness-study-results
LAPTOP:
http://www.safesleevecases.com/pages/lab-tested
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0198/9272/files/Final_Report_without_Letter.pdf?13622971196583020425
VIDEO: http://www.safesleevecases.com/pages/laptop-radiation
ALSO RECOMMENDED:
https://twitter.com/DevraLeeDavis
http://ehtrust.org/
https://twitter.com/berkeleyprc
http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-cellphones-have-warning-labels-1463968922
http://ehtrust.org/cell-phones-wireless-childrens-health-symposium-2016-pediatric-societies/
cstanleytech
(27,247 posts)cellphone manufacturers are going to probably have to look at improving their shielding at the very least.
Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Got one for my cards - and many people carry them in their phone cases now. Not really for protecting human brains.
proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Easy enough to design a small Faraday cage for the phone or to wrap it in a Ferrite based RF absorber material. But that just prevents you call phone from being able to transmit out. The power button and/or airplane mode does the same thing.
I can design a sleeve (or antennae) to make the phone directional so it does not transmit directly into the head. But can the user keep it pointed toward the Cell Tower as when they turn the call will be lost. And from a liability standpoint what is my exposure as a manufacturer if one side of the phone is a risk if placed against the head, even if it is the back side?
madokie
(51,076 posts)most times I leave it on the table and talk that way. the other times I use my earphone thingie. Not so much because I worry about the cancer part but because I only have one ear that works and its on the same side as I take notes with and many times I'm taking notes as I converse. Mostly I use Text to my friends, family and wife.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)My remote speaker function works just fine, which I use 95% of the time
MgtPA
(1,022 posts)
elljay
(1,178 posts)Silver_Witch
(1,820 posts)Perhaps I should listen to them.
elljay
(1,178 posts)I still have nightmares about powder blue polyester!
JesterCS
(1,828 posts)Without any stimulus from anything that could cause it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Worked from home for WorldCom/MCI at turn of the century.
Always on a cell phone.
Javaman
(63,233 posts)
MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 11:12 AM - Edit history (1)
Can't the patient data from neurologists/oncologists be used in an epidemiological study to prove or disprove a link? (similar to smoking proof, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2038856)
reddread
(6,896 posts)MowCowWhoHow III
(2,103 posts)I can't see how that wouldn't translate to mobiles.
Not everyone smoked then, not everyone uses a mobile (esp to talk) now.
Loudestlib
(980 posts)Ex Lurker
(3,929 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(62,122 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)if I had to chose between the talk or text I'd pick text.
NJCher
(38,444 posts)I'd choose neither. 'Cuz I don't want to talk/text to anybody.
I also lose these devices, so it's really not practical for me.
I think cell phones are a convenience for other people, so since that's the case, I think other people should pay for it if they want to talk to me.
Still waiting for someone to buy my cell service and phone. 
People are horrified when they find I don't have a cell phone. They think it's dangerous!
Just out of curiosity, for a few years I kept track of how many times I'd have used a cell phone if I had one. It came out to about 2x a year. So if I paid $40 a month for cell phone service, that's $480, which means each phone call would cost me $240.
No thanks.
Cher
madokie
(51,076 posts)68 for me and 64 for her I'd totally feel wrong if we don't have our cell phone when either of us leave the house. Shit happens and a person needs to be on top of it as quickly as possible when or if it does. We've weighted the cost and feel it is a necessity in our lives at this point in time.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)
tavernier
(13,319 posts)If they are required to actually converse, it's usually with their parents, and those are very short conversations.
OnlinePoker
(5,868 posts)I expect the next we'll see is cancer in the fingers from people holding the phones in their hands all the time. My brother lives on the bloody thing (though primarily texting) and has had other forms of cancer in the past so I would suspect he would be susceptible to these cancers as well. When I say I don't have a cell/smartphone, people look at me like I have two heads. I had to get the nurse to show me how to turn on my Mom's phone in the hospital a few months back to call the family.
LiberalArkie
(16,770 posts)
Scientific
(314 posts)...on a wire...
I can feel it when I hold the cell next to my ear,
so I always use either headphones or speakerphones.
still_one
(96,959 posts)
GreatGazoo
(4,028 posts)you're worth it, your brain is worth it.
My mother died of a massive GBM tumor (softball sized). Her doctors, plus Ted Kennedy's doctor, refused to put cell phones near their heads. I asked her doctor why. He said simply "because they cause cancer." This was a brain surgeon who specializes in cancers, same for Kennedy's.
Israeli studies linked cell phones to salivary gland cancers also.
symptoms:
http://www.signsofbraintumor.com/
-none
(1,884 posts)There have been a massive increase of cell phone use, but no corresponding increase in tumors or cancers.
Wasn't there another cancer scare about cell phone a decade or so ago? If cell phones causes cancer, there should be a quite noticeable increase in tumors and cancers. There is not. This in just more recycled BS to scare the unwary. Part of the "All Fear, All the Time".
Blue tooth is also a digital radio device. Only this is plugged into your ear all day long, every day. Why is it not a problem, but is touted as a solution?
And as someone else noted, where is the increase of finger cancer? If people are worried about cancer, they should be more worried about their granite counter tops and the bricks in the nearby public grade school.
Kashkakat v.2.0
(1,895 posts)with decent sound quality. And one that's assured to work on my particular phone - they seem to have all kinds of connections that aren't necessarily interchangeable.
GreatGazoo
(4,028 posts)I would shop ebay.
Put the acronym OEM in the search -- it means 'original equipment manufacturer' and has become shorthand for accessories made by the same company that made your phone.
So for a Samsung phone something like:
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.Xsamsung+headset+oem.TRS0&_nkw=samsung+headset+oem&_sacat=0
glowing
(12,233 posts)If I'm not wearing my ear bops, I won't bother to take the call. Mostly, I text. I wish I had time to sit around talking on the phone... Lol. What a luxury that is!
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)... for our daughter, any time she is on one of our phones (which is rare). It is purple.
Been reading this in European press for at least a decade now. I still remember the title of the segment on "This American Life" about it five or six years ago, called "Sleeper Cell." A bit chilling.
mahatmakanejeeves
(62,122 posts)Multiyear, peer-reviewed study found ‘low incidences’ of two types of tumors in male rats exposed to type of radio frequencies commonly emitted by cellphones
By Ryan Knutson
ryan.knutson@wsj.com
@Ryan_Knutson
May 27, 2016 12:42 a.m. ET
A major U.S. government study on rats has found a link between cellphones and cancer, an explosive finding in the long-running debate about whether mobile phones cause health effects. ... The multiyear, peer-reviewed study, by the National Toxicology Program, found “low incidences” of two types of tumors in male rats that were exposed to the type of radio frequencies that are commonly emitted by cellphones. The tumors were gliomas, which are in the glial cells of the brain, and schwannomas of the heart.
“Given the widespread global usage of mobile communications among users of all ages, even a very small increase in the incidence of disease resulting from exposure to [radio-frequency radiation] could have broad implications for public health,” according to a report of partial findings from the study, which was released late Thursday.
A spokesperson for the National Institutes of Health, which helped oversee the study, wasn’t immediately available for comment. Earlier in the week, the NIH said, “It is important to note that previous human, observational data collected in earlier, large-scale population-based studies have found limited evidence of an increased risk for developing cancer from cellphone use.”
While not all biological effects observed in animals necessarily apply to humans, the National Toxicology Program’s $25 million study is one of the biggest and most comprehensive experiment into health effects from cellphones.
The National Toxicology Program is holding a media briefing at noon today to discuss the results
trudyco
(1,258 posts)And my spouse always claimed I was being weird when the kids and I prefer texting over phone calls. Lots of us parents taught our kids to text rather than talk on the phone precisely because of the radiation potential.
I also keep my laptop off my lap.
Didn't Edward Kennedy and Biden's son die of brain cancer
I still remember the Colbert skit on cell phones. It was funny but dismissed something a lot of us suspected.
tavernier
(13,319 posts)Of this since he had multiple tumors, and was a 24/7 cell phone user.
mahatmakanejeeves
(62,122 posts)mac56
(17,640 posts)Locrian
(4,523 posts)
Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,752 posts)
.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Guy Whitey Corngood
(26,752 posts)
mac56
(17,640 posts)
fasttense
(17,301 posts)that claims their results show No Cancer. Just wait for it. The cell phone corporations are going to attack in herds or at least small groups. Then there will be a group called "cell phone deniers" who claim their brains will die if not exposed to cell phone radiation. They force their children to attach cell phones to seven parts of their body. They all soon die out.
Just wait for it. The deniers are coming.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)Billions of people use cellphones all of the time. If they caused cancer you would be seeing massive increases in the rate of brain cancers (or heart tumors as this study suggested). This is not happening. Brain cancers have been around forever, long before cell phones were ever invented.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)Orrex
(64,435 posts)Rational people weren't in denial about it. Instead (and appropriately) they said "the data available at this time do not support that claim." That's how science works, and that's how science should work.
And now that this study has been completed, we can discuss the results.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)but there was a guy I debated with on FB about this sometime back, and he was as "rational" as they come, good liberal, etc. He would not even consider the possibility, didn't believe cell phone radiation could possibly cause cancerous mutations. I call that denial.
Orrex
(64,435 posts)there are skeptics and then there are contrarians, and the latter is decidedly anti-science.
Your pal on FB sounds like the latter, alas.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)the mechanism is still unknown. The SAR measurement itself is based upon heat. We don't know if the affect is caused by the power or field strength or rate of change? How frequency dependent is it? We really need to figure out what it is we do not know that allows an electro-magentic wave to cause cells to become cancerous.
William Seger
(11,178 posts)Call that "denial" of the "suggestion" if you will, but if this study holds up, then it indicates an entirely new category of cancer causes. Cancer is caused by DNA damage, and the only known causes are chemical carcinogens, certain viruses, and ionizing radiation -- i.e. electromagnetic photons that are energetic enough to knock electrons out of molecules, which are high-frequency ultraviolet light, x-rays, and gamma rays. But ultraviolet photons that have that much energy are almost a million times more energetic than the photons used by cellphone frequencies, and the effect is not cumulative: Either an individual photon has enough kinetic energy to knock an individual electron out of an atom, or it doesn't. If not, then whatever energy it has is simply absorbed as heat, and absorbing more of them just means more heat, not ionization.
If this study holds up, then current science has no explanation, but if it holds up, then I feel confident that the scientific method can handle it. Until then, I'll continue to "deny suggestions" that haven't been through that process.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)but just because we don't have a mechanism, or don't understand the mechanism, doesn't mean it's not a real effect. And yeah, it could be some novel pathway, maybe some low level inflammation is induced that causes DNA damage, rather than a direct effect of the radiowaves.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Either radio waves only effect male rats in specific ways, which is highly unlikely. I mean, if we are talking about male specific problems, such as testicular cancer, sure, but heart and brain lesions/tumors? I don't think so.
They also don't name a possibly avenue for causation here.
Kashkakat v.2.0
(1,895 posts)on any given suspected health hazard - run a cost (eg health cost)-benefit analysis and do what I can to lessen the risk until such time as its proven safe
Scientific method is only one way to prove/disprove - as we all know its not the be all and end-all - it is itself subject to cultural bias and bias of whoever is paying for the study and selecting the researchers.
groundloop
(12,433 posts)My guess is that those of us who grew up pre-cell phone are much less likely to experience problems than our kids who have had cell phones from early on. I'd also guess that kids who started exposing themselves to cell phone radiation while they were still developing would likely have more issues.
I'll also make a prediction that the cell phone industry will fight any findings linking cell phone usage with cancer just as fiercely as big tobacco fought the smoking-lung cancer link and the petroleum industry is fighting their link to climate change.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)years ago.
I wish he had been right.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)I don't like people enough to talk to them in person, let alone on the phone.
still_one
(96,959 posts)At a very minimum a lot of potential lawsuits will result from this
Hopefully, this will result in the use of speaker or wired earphones to limit ones exposure.
Not sure what the industry can do to shield users, but this needs to be taken seriously
Major Nikon
(36,915 posts)
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)in brain cancer that can be correlated with cell phone usage. If anything, it shows something of the opposite.
Or maybe that's exactly what you meant by your header, and I'm just obtuse.
I think that if cell phones REALLY were connected to brain cancer, it would be obvious to the most casual observer by now. And (although this anecdote isn't a valid statistic) the only two people I've ever known who died of brain cancer, both died well before cell phones even came about.
The bigger problem with cell phones is that people feel free to engage in loud personal conversations in public spaces.
daleo
(21,317 posts)It seems to me, that's about when the iphone/smart phone really took off. But, other than that, there is no correlation in the rest of the time series. So, the bit at the end could be meaningful, or just some random noise in the data.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)from 1991 to 1995, when people were first getting cell phones. That's when I got one. Then there's some up and down, a few years where rates pretty much held steady, and then another decline.
In fact, brain cancer rates are still not back to where the were in 1991. Cell phones cause brain cancer? There's not even correlation here, let alone any evidence of causation.
daleo
(21,317 posts)But we will need a much longer time series for that to show up, if it does. Even then, it would be correlation, as you say, not clear-cut evidence of causation.
Plus, the rat experiments only showed evidence of an effect on male rats. It is hard to see any biological basis for that, other than the general tendency of females to be less prone to many diseases, in most species (as far as I know).
Bernardo de La Paz
(51,843 posts)We would expect the correlation to be strongest in the time of highest use, as we see in the 2007 and 2008 points.
However, there is probably a cumulative effect so that new data may show diagnoses continuing to rise. It may also indicate a lag of some duration between usage and diagnoses.
2008 is 8 years ago. Thanks for posting, but it would be good to see more recent data.
Lucky Luciano
(11,526 posts)Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 03:02 PM - Edit history (1)
LiberalArkie
(16,770 posts)Look at 1998. The newer cell phones are really low power and even less when close to a cell site. So if you are in the city with good cell coverage your cell phone will be transmitting with lower power than if you are in an area with weak coverage (lees bars). Back in the early cell phone days the frequencies used were in the 800 mHz range. The 800 mHz frequencies are now supplemented with 1900 mHz frequencies. Generally it has always been thought that the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is at a given power level and distance to the body. Around 2006 is when the move to the higher frequencies really took off with a vengeance. When the cell companies start using the 600 mHz and 700 mHz frequencies things might start getting better.
Now when you are thinking about a police car or most mobile radios in the 800-900 mHz range the power output is in the range of 10 -50 watts of power compared to the average cell phone of around .05 watt at maximum power.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Sprint and T-Mobile are hoping to get in on it. They're mostly stuck in the 900mhz range, which is why their coverage sucks.
Honestly, AT&T and Verizon should be broken up. Together they're hurting people who go with other cell providers.
C Moon
(12,632 posts)I think 2007?
Jemmons
(711 posts)function. As in the cancer being a small but real thing in your late forties will be diagnosed say 15 years later and perhaps kill you in 20 years later.
The best quote i could find in less than five minutes is this:
The latency period refers to the time between initial asbestos exposure and when a doctor definitively diagnoses the cancer. The long period of time between exposure and illness is one of the hallmarks of mesothelioma.
The typical mesothelioma latency period is 20 to 50 years, with recent studies finding a median of 30 to 45 years. Under normal circumstances, the shortest possible latency period is 10 to 15 years, while the longest is more than 50 years.
If the time frame for gliomas caused by mobile phone radiation is comparable and if mobile use is starting to be a strong factor around 2000, it would mean that 2020 is a good guess for when you would see something that would correlate to that. And hence outside your otherwise very suggestive chart.
Major Nikon
(36,915 posts)But even if one were to assume the latency of those two completely different cancers were the same, you're still talking about new cases starting to show up in 10 years by the quote you just found.
Jemmons
(711 posts)that damage from radiation would only lead to pathology that can be diagnosed within a ten year time frame should you expect any correlation in your snapshot. That is a very hard assumption to make, let alone prove. Hence your nice chart is of very limited relevance.
Major Nikon
(36,915 posts)If you are looking for absolutes, good luck with that. What plenty of people are saying is there's no apparent causal or even correlative link between cell phone use and cancer based on a pretty well defined usage history for the past 20 years or so.
Citing the latency period of a completely different form of cancer has very little relevance.
sofa king
(10,857 posts)That precipitous drop in cases from 04 to 06 seems to coincide with the arrival of cheap LCD screens, which replaced cathode ray tube monitors....
Ned Flanders
(233 posts)Especially since our kids' schools are so full of them?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The mortality rate difference between the control and male rat groups suggests this might not be problem at all. And wifi is even less power.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)juice for our phones.
There is no convincing evidence in the published literature to support the contention that exposure to extremely low-frequency electric and magnetic fields generated by sources such as household appliances, video display terminals, and local power lines are demonstrable health hazards." [5]
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/emf.html
...
In 1995, the American Physical Society (APS) spoke out on the question of power-line EMFs and health effects. The APS policy statement reads, in part: "The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels show no consistent, significant link between cancer and power line fields. While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor, it is necessary to demonstrate a consistent, significant, and causal relationship before one can conclude that such effects do occur. From this standpoint, the conjectures relating cancer to power line fields have not been scientifically substantiated." (See APS Policy Statement 95.2 reaffirmed in 2005.)
...
In conclusion, there are no known health risks that have been conclusively demonstrated to be caused by living near high-voltage power lines. But science is unable to prove a negative, including whether low-level EMFs are completely risk free. Most scientists believe that exposure to the low-level EMFs near power lines is safe, but some scientists continue research to look for possible health risks associated with these fields. If there are any risks such as cancer associated with living near power lines, then it is clear that those risks are small.
...
https://hps.org/hpspublications/articles/powerlines.html
At least that's what they say...
http://www.brown.edu/Administration/EHS/radiation/rf.htm
Response to jtuck004 (Reply #39)
mahatmakanejeeves This message was self-deleted by its author.
mahatmakanejeeves
(62,122 posts)I suspect it's the noise generated by the switching power supplies found in every desktop, every laptop, and every flat screen TV. In the late 70s or mid-80s, Texas Instruments said that the breakeven point for deciding whether a design should have a linear power supply (the kind equipped with fairly hefty transformers) or a switching power supply was 75 watts. Well, costs for switching power supplies have plummeted. I bought a Kindle Fire tablet in February. It has a switching power supply.
I guess microwave ovens are the last thing you see still equipped with transformers, or have they changed too?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(62,122 posts)The international broadcasting. Or domestic, if you're listening to Alex Jones.
The spectrum is covered with electronic trash. Even when you power a receiver with cells (aka flashlight batteries, or AAs, or AAAs), the noise is coming in over the antenna.
The country- or organization-sponsored SW is mostly a form of AM broadcasting. SSB is there too, and there's code being sent, mostly too fast for me to have any idea what they're saying.
Too bad. I used to enjoy listening to it. First the Internet knocked off the European broadcasters, and now EMF noise is taking its toll.
Best wishes.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Like many other things.
Anyway, that explains part of it. Thank you.
Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)Shortwave is dying because radio in general is dying. People are seeking their information and entertainment online in the space of the Internet. Shortwave used to be the go-to source for the kind of information that you couldn't just get in the "usual" places, like radio and TV.
I am a longtime DXer, and it's sad to see what has happened. Shortwave is a wasteland, but Alex Jones and any number of religious crazies still tune in just fine. I hear them clearly. The extra "noise" on the shortwave bands you're hearing is from the lack of carrier signals from anyone else who gives a shit about shortwave.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)FCC ET Docket No. 13-44; FCC 14-208 has been published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2015. The rules will become effective 30 days after publication
http://www.nwemc.com/news/2015/04/23/fcc-will-no-longer-recognize-emc-testing-performed-by-chinese-labs
Not every product is bad. But it appears the problem is big enough that the FCC took action. Non compliant devices are going to be a bigger part of the problem than just the topology of the power converter. They can be designed quiet or not. Depends upon what one is willing to spend on R&D and the Skill/Experience of the Engineer or lack of.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)And of course the rats were "not very different" from the size of the average human.
Major Nikon
(36,915 posts)They were given this level of exposure even while still in their mother's womb and throughout their entire life.
So yeah, not much different than sticking your head in a microwave after disabling the interlock.
-none
(1,884 posts)Humans have larger body cells than the smaller rats. Just as elephants have larger cells than we do. How can that not affect how the body handles radio frequency radiation?
Radiation, now that word itself is the real problem. People conflict non-ionizing radio radiation with ionizing radio active decay. They think if one is dangerous, the other must be also, because the same word covers both.
Where is the critical thinking people don't use that they should be using here?
mahatmakanejeeves
(62,122 posts)Last edited Fri May 27, 2016, 12:57 PM - Edit history (6)
Disclaimer: I'm not taking sides. I am not expressing support for Paul Brodeur's position by linking to his book. I do so in the interest of getting the information out to you.
I read the first book about this, "Currents of Death," by Martin Paul Brodeur, when it came out.
Currents of Death: The Great Power Line Cover-Up
Granger Morgan, an engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon, did some work on this that did not support the book's conclusions, IIRC.
M. Granter Morgan, Paul Slovic, Indira Nair, Dan Geisler, Donald MacGregor, Baruch Fischhoff, David Lincoln, and Keith Florig
What have studies shown about possible associations between non-ionizing EMFs and cancer in children?
Numerous epidemiologic studies and comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature have evaluated possible associations between exposure to non-ionizing EMFs and risk of cancer in children. (Magnetic fields are the component of non-ionizing EMFs that are usually studied in relation to their possible health effects.) Most of the research has focused on leukemia and brain tumors, the two most common cancers in children. Studies have examined associations of these cancers with living near power lines, with magnetic fields in the home, and with exposure of parents to high levels of magnetic fields in the workplace. No consistent evidence for an association between any source of non-ionizing EMF and cancer has been found.
Exposure from power lines. Although a study in 1979 pointed to a possible association between living near electric power lines and childhood leukemia, more recent studies have had mixed findings. Most of these studies did not find an association or found one only for those children who lived in homes with very high levels of magnetic fields, which are present in few residences.
ETA: Amazingly, I have a copy of Paul Brodeur's book on my desk right now. I had it in my file cabinet. Why, I do not know. It was published in 1989. I thought it was several years older than that. Part of the material originally appeared in The New Yorker, so that must be where I first read it.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Page 15 (conclusion)
significant effects were observed in the brain or heart of female rats regardless of modulation.
Looks like the full details of the study (affects on other organs etc) will not be available till late 2017. On the bright side for us "Life of Brian" fans. The survival rate was slightly lower in the control group than for the exposed groups.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)poor rats.
vkkv
(3,384 posts)
geardaddy
(25,375 posts)Ahhh little malignant one, cancer one.
Sorry, I saw the name for the heart tumor and that song popped into my head.
truthisfreedom
(23,337 posts)That said earbuds could concentrate radiation inside your head rather than make phones safer!
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)have done this a long time ago, they knew!
groundloop
(12,433 posts)Anything to reduce RF energy to the user will also reduce RF energy to the cell tower antenna. There would need to be work along the lines of moving the RF transmission further from the user's body and/or further reducing the amount of transmitter power needed.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)Not that users/public will like them but three ways to cut the SAR.
1) Bulk up the phone such that the antennae cannot be placed so close to the flesh. That is make it much thicker to force the antennae away from the body.
2) Make the antennae directional so when the phone is used the RF Pattern is away from the body. People will need to always hold the phone so the antennae is pointed toward a tower. Turning will result in disconnections.
3) Increase cell tower density so that the transmit power of the Cell Phone can be reduced while maintaining coverage area's.
Given a little time there will be many mire. Most will either inconvenience or cost more money.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)mahatmakanejeeves
(62,122 posts)Last edited Sat May 28, 2016, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)
While we're at it, will we ever get the full story about their involvement in the "Titanic" affair?
whistler162
(11,155 posts)a proportional amount of radiation exposure and not the exact number that humans are exposed to. Since rats, unless they where genetically engineered, are slightly smaller than the average human being and rats have proportionally smaller brains.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Its interesting that non-ionizing radiation can be so selective.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Response to groundloop (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Kashkakat v.2.0
(1,895 posts)having some sort of universal connection that plugs in to all types of cell phones.
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT...
And as an aside to yall who think capitalism is some sort of creative engine that sees a need and always fills it - yer just plain WRONG.
athena
(4,187 posts)We're talking here about two or three rats out of ninety, compared to zero rats with cancer in the control group. If the expected number of rats that get cancer, with no cellphone radiation, is 2 or 3, then there is a 14% or 5% probability, respectively, that no rats would get cancer in the control group. In other words, you could easily get this study's results through pure chance.
Given that there is no known physical process through which non-ionizing electromagnetic waves can cause cancer, there is good reason to doubt the results of this statistically weak study. I expect that these results will not be upheld by subsequent studies.
For additional reasons to doubt the study's results, see:
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/27/11797924/cellphones-cancer-bad-reporting
GoneOffShore
(17,661 posts)... no matter what Mother Jones and Consumer Reports say"
I'll take Gorski any day and I'm not putting my phone down.
And here's another link from Steven Novella - http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/underwhelming-cell-phone-rat-study/
There are certain myths that are frustratingly resistant to evidence, science, and reason. Some of these are basically medical conspiracy theories, where someone (industry and/or big pharma and/or physicians and/or the government) has slam-dunk evidence for harm but conspires to keep it from you, the people. For example, despite decades worth of negative studies, the belief that vaccines are harmful, causing conditions ranging from autism to sudden infant death syndrome, to all varieties of allergies and autoimmune diseases, refuses to die. Fortunately, this myth is one that, after more than a decade of hammering by scientists, skeptics, and public health advocates, has finally taken on enough of the patina of a fringe belief that most mainstream news sources no longer feel obligated to include the antivaccine side in stories about vaccines for “balance.” It is a zombie myth, one that, no matter how often it is “killed,” always seems to rise again. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the myth that cell phones cause cancer, as some very credulous reporting late last week demonstrated in the form of headlines like this:
“Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer (Mother Jones)
Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study (WSJ)
Questions abound after study links tumors to cellphone radiation (Science)
Major US study links cellphone exposure to cancer — at least in rats (STAT)
“It actually has me concerned, and I’m an expert”: Major cell phone radiation study reignites cancer debate (Salon.com and Scientific American, the latter under a less inflammatory, but still overblown headline.)
Government study finds link between cell phones and cancer in rats (Yahoo! Finance and Consumer Reports
Massive government study concludes cell phone radiation causes brain cancer (NaturalNews)
Yes, I know that NaturalNews.com is not a mainstream news site. Rather it’s a quack site run by Mike Adams. Just search this blog or my not-so-super-secret other blog for numerous posts about the contortions and abuse of science and medicine by Mr. Adams. I included his article, quite simply, to illustrate that some headlines from mainstream news articles on the study don’t sound all that different from Mike Adams.
Also notice how many of these headlines leave out an important fact, namely that this study was not done with humans, but with rats.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-marginal-results-does-not-prove-that-cell-phones-cause-cancer-no-matter-what-mother-jones-and-consumer-reports-say/
WhoWoodaKnew
(847 posts)yourself as best you can?