Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Lionel Mandrake

(4,214 posts)
15. You want science? Try this.
Thu Aug 9, 2012, 07:05 PM
Aug 2012
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCauses/OtherCarcinogens/AtHome/cellular-phones

Here are some excerpts:

the RF waves given off by cell phones don't have enough energy to damage DNA directly or to heat body tissues. Because of this, many scientists believe that cell phones aren't able to cause cancer. Most studies done in the lab have supported this theory, finding that RF waves do not cause DNA damage.

several studies in rats and mice have looked at whether RF energy might promote the development of tumors caused by other known carcinogens (cancer-causing agents). These studies did not find evidence of tumor promotion.

Several dozen studies have looked at possible links between cell phone use and tumors. Most of these studies have focused on brain tumors. Many of these have been case-control studies, in which patients with brain tumors (cases) were compared to people free of brain tumors (controls), in terms of their past cell phone use.

In general, these studies have yielded similar results:

In most studies patients with brain tumors do not report more cell phone use overall than the controls. This finding is true when all brain tumors are considered as a group, or when specific types of tumors are considered.

Most studies do not show a "dose-response relationship," which would be a tendency for the risk of brain tumors to be higher with increasing cell phone use. This would be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.

Most studies do not show that brain tumors occur more often on the side of the head where people hold their cell phones. This might also be expected if cell phone use caused brain tumors.

A few studies have found a possible link. For example, several studies published by the same research group in Sweden have reported an increased risk of tumors on the side of the head where the cell phone was held, particularly with 10 or more years of use. It is hard to know what to make of these findings because studies by other researchers have not had the same results, and there is no overall increase in brain tumors in Sweden during the years that correspond to these reports.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

You object to knowing how much radiation is coming that close to your brain... 99Forever Aug 2012 #1
How much is too much? Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2012 #2
Cell phone use can kill you. Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #5
Yeah, but that's inattentiveness. Lipstick can kill too and not just because I'm drop-dead gorgeous. Nuclear Unicorn Aug 2012 #7
... Major Nikon Aug 2012 #6
ROFL, taking a cheap shot at people who think science is hard snooper2 Aug 2012 #3
because as a physicist I know the difference Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #4
Ted Kennedy's surgeon - the best in the country -- said what about cell phones? KurtNYC Aug 2012 #8
SHHHH! redqueen Aug 2012 #11
Dr. Gupta's reputation is far from stellar NickB79 Aug 2012 #14
Sanjay Gupta is the Generation X version of Dr. Bob Arnot RZM Aug 2012 #24
Didn't say GUPTA was the best neurosurgeon in the country. Allen Friedman was. KurtNYC Aug 2012 #38
The same Sanjay Gupta Confusious Aug 2012 #30
he gets paid to say things but not enough apparently to put a cell phone against his own head KurtNYC Aug 2012 #37
A $5 Chinese-made headpiece? Zalatix Aug 2012 #35
Well Mr Physicist... 99Forever Aug 2012 #16
Interesting. A friend of mine was diagnosed recently with a very rare form of cancer which is sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #18
Was it glioma (aka "GBM") ? KurtNYC Aug 2012 #39
I believe it may have been. I had not heard of it before as it is not a common form of cancer, the sabrina 1 Aug 2012 #41
I think you could have made your case without taking such a swipe at Kucinich. Raine1967 Aug 2012 #9
You're right. Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #12
Me, too. "Mostly" applies to all politicians. Zalatix Aug 2012 #36
You want science? you come with name calling and industry studies but you claim you want science.. KurtNYC Aug 2012 #10
Thank you. +1. Between the totally fantastic and the completely dogmatic, it gets tiresome. n/t Egalitarian Thug Aug 2012 #13
You want science? Try this. Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #15
That's not very convincing. Prometheus Bound Aug 2012 #20
Well, that's the way science works. Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #21
Here from your own source -- "suggestion of a possible increased risk of glioma," KurtNYC Aug 2012 #40
"But ... shortcomings ... prevented them from drawing any firm conclusions" Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #42
I love how the ACS KT2000 Aug 2012 #28
Well it seems he says .. 99Forever Aug 2012 #17
We should be on the side of caution anyway. limpyhobbler Aug 2012 #19
If you want to worry about something that industry pooh-poohs, Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #22
I lived near Slater School in Fresno, Ca.. many had cancer from the powerlines annm4peace Aug 2012 #23
Did they really? Lionel Mandrake Aug 2012 #29
if they had the funds to keep the study going they could have annm4peace Aug 2012 #32
once again Kuch's trying to do something for the people... wildbilln864 Aug 2012 #25
If there's no harm, then what's the harm in knowing? MADem Aug 2012 #26
I don't believe they're harmless. emilyg Aug 2012 #27
Post removed Post removed Aug 2012 #31
I'm sure it will be about as useful as the California prop 65 warning that is pretty much on every.. yawnmaster Aug 2012 #33
There is no real argument here. jonthebru Aug 2012 #34
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Kucinich's Brain Afflicte...»Reply #15