Cell Phones And Cancer: The Risk Is Real

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP
Cell Phones And Cancer: The Risk Is Real

Cell Phones And Cancer: The Risk Is Real   -  by Russel Mokhiber

http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber04122011.html

"...Davis is convinced that cell phone radiation causes brain cancer. She is convinced by the evidence. 'Today, there is no debate that x-rays directly disturb electrons, break their bonds, disrupt the making of proteins, and impede the ability of cells to fix damage,' Davis writes. 'And yet there has not been much debate about the potential dangers of radiation from cell phones. It's been assumed that they are safe."..

Fidel

What's a little glioma, or some other as yet unknown effect now and again? They can cut it out and drop it in a pan with the greatest of ease nowadays. Life would be boring without a little risk. Personally I don't mind being a guinea pig for the multi-billion dollar a year cell phone industry. "bleating and babbling"

Sineed

From the US Cancer Institute:

Quote:
Research studies have not shown a consistent link between cell phone use and cancer. A large international study (Interphone) published in 2010 found that, overall, cell phone users have no increased risk for two of the most common types of brain tumorglioma and meningioma. For the small proportion of study participants who reported spending the most total time on cell phone calls there was some increased risk of glioma, but the researchers considered this finding inconclusive .

This question hasn't been conclusively answered.  I personally prefer to make lengthy phone calls on a landline, and encourage my daughters to do the same.  But a risk has not been found.

Not all types of EM radiation are the same:

Quote:
Electromagnetic radiation can be divided into two types: Ionizing (high-frequency) and non-ionizing (low-frequency) (2). The radiofrequency energy of cell phones is a type of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation.Ionizing radiation, such as that produced by x-ray machines, can pose a cancer risk. There is currently no conclusive evidence that non-ionizing radiation emitted by cell phones is associated with cancer risk.

Equating radiofrequency waves with X-rays is just silly.

Fidel

Yes, they mention that bit about non-ionizing radiation not linked to cancer all the time. I don't like some of their other hasty conclusions though. Davis and others have sifted through the statistics on brain cancer in the US themselves, and it does look like an epidemic in slow motion.

Searosia

I don't understand this strange want to blame it entirely on a cell phone...have any idea the number of wifi signals bouncing off us these days?  A cell phone next to your head is barely significant.  Somehow all these signals are completely neglectable, it's only when you put a source of it directly next to your head that we're able to connect the dots.  If cell phones cause cancer...shouldn't I be equally worried about my wireless router zapping my DNA too?  ;)   Cell phone / Cancer seems to have all the markings of bad myth at most.  Can we do a Cell Phones And Corn : It can be popped! thread next?

 

Fidel:

Quote:
Davis and others have sifted through the statistics on brain cancer in the US themselves, and it does look like an epidemic in slow motion

 

I can agree with that link...but have problems with the link to only cell phones.

Fidel

Davis et al are cautioning us not to hold the cell phone against our ear or any part of our head in general. We can use ear buds or hands-free devices. But apparently not all ear buds are entirely low EM either.

And personal devices that are telephony enabled usually come with a belt case or hip holster that maintains a safe space between your body and the device. Apparently studies have show that EM fields produced by the devices penetrate through thinner skulls and deeper into the middle part of a child's brain than an adult's. There are mild warnings that come with every new telephony enabled device, and they are there because their corporate legal eagles have advised them to. They know that rigorous testing hasn't been done on either lab animals or humans. They know that their customers are participating in a long term experiment and crossing their fingers in the mean time. Tobacco companies operated the same way for years and years. It took more than 50 years for them to do anything about lead in paint and gasoline after the first alarm bells went off. The human body is a highly complex organism. And even if something doesn't give us asbestosis of the lung or brain cancer for 30 years into the future, is it really compatible with human health?

Sineed

Timely article in NYT:

Do cell phones cause brain cancer?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17cellphones-t.html?_r=2&...

Quote:
The trouble is that even the largest, longest, best-designed retrospective studies that rely on memory are likely to be riddled by recall bias. Typically, it is not the failure of memory that produces this bias, but its hyperactivity — its desire to explain the uncertainty of the present with the certainty of the past.

It's a long article, but worth a look.  Basically, the difficulty lies in the relative rarity of brain cancer, and weaknesses inherent in observational studies.

Fidel

NYTimes wrote:
The rarity of the cancer provokes a desperate and often corrosive search for a cause ("why, of all people, did I get an astrocytoma?" Susan Reynard must have asked herself). And when patients with brain tumors happen to share a common exposure - in this case, cellphones - the line between cause and coincidence begins to blur.

And it's the cell phone company's job, like it was for tobacco companies, to pay hired guns to make sure the line was blurred. They made a lot of money in the mean time.

According to Devra Davis, there were concerns about tobacco in 1930s Germany. Some of those scientists came to North America in the 1940s. It's an interesting bit of history.

I think it's like some have said about the differences between corporate funded science and publicly funded variety. Doing science has become a quest for funding. Davis herself had to quit her position at the Pittsburgh university in order to pursue further research into cell phones and cancer. Apparently US research universities have commercial sponsors' interests to consider, too.

Soulforger

I have heard that cell phones have been shown to "excite" the brain cells around where they are held.  This leads me to wonder if this could accelerate alzhiemers / dementia.  The issue may not be cancer alone.

Soulforger
NDPP

Heavy Use of Cell Phones May Increase Tumour Risk: Study  - by Martin Mittelstaedt

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-heavy-use-of-cell-phones-may-...

"The study, dubbed Interphone, found that people who reported chatting on the phones the equivalent of half an hour a day over 10 years had an elevated risk of a rare and often deadly brain cancer known as glioma...

The frequent users had a 40 percent higher risk of glioma, compared to people who never used the phones, as well as about twice the risk of developing tumours on the same side of their heads where they normally held their phones while talking, or where most of the energy emitted by their phones would be absorbed..."

Mick

Hmm, good thing nobody actually talks on cell phones much anymore. What's the risk to people who text message?

Soulforger

Mick wrote:

Hmm, good thing nobody actually talks on cell phones much anymore. What's the risk to people who text message?

I would recommend keeping the phone away from your lap.  I don't keep one in my pants. If I do carry one it goes in my jacket pocket.

RosaL

Apparently there's some evidence that [url= http://www.pongresearch.com/products/]these[/url] are effective.

(There's some inexplicable problem with the link. go here: [url]http://bit.ly/dGXZTT[/url])

Fidel

The unstoppable march of the tobacco giants How the industry ruthlessly exploits the developing world - its young, poor and uneducated

Why would a benevolent corporatocracy knowingly sell dangerous products, like tobacco and asbestos, unproven pharmaceutical cocktails etc to millions of other perfectly good human beings? It makes no sense. At least not for some of us silly buggers.

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Quote:
2. RADIATION: DO CELL PHONES OPERATE IN THE CLASSICAL WAVE LIMIT?

Of course they do, that's the whole point. That's why they can't cause cancer. I promised last week that I would try to look into the concerns raised by Bill Bruno, a Los Alamos physicist. However, it does not seem to be a scientific issue. I was unable to find a scientific forum in which Bruno has raised his concerns. In a letter to the Santa Fe New Mexican he describes his personal health problems, which are typical of the condition usually referred to as "electro-sensitivity" or "electromagnetic hypersensitivity." According to a 2005 scientific review "the symptoms described by 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' sufferers can be severe and are sometimes disabling. However, it has proved difficult to show under blind conditions that exposure to electromagnetic fields can trigger these symptoms. This suggests that 'electromagnetic hypersensitivity' is unrelated to the presence of electromagnetic fields, although more research is required." Psychosomatic Medicine 67 (2): 22432.

May 13 2011

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

Quote:

Friday, May 20, 2011

 

1. SORRY: I WAS A VICTIM OF CONVERGING DEADLINES.

Or could it be that I'm getting slower in my declining years? Next week there won't even be a late WN. I will be delivering an invited paper in Stockholm.

2. CELL PHONES: SANJAY GUPTA USES A WIRED EARPIECE.

Dr. Sanjay Gupta, MD, the Chief Medical Correspondent for CNN, uses a wired earpiece to avoid radiating his brain with microwaves. I don't even use a cell phone, so am I safer than Sanjay Gupta? No not unless Sanjay keeps his cell phone in his pants pocket when he uses the earpiece. Our gonads dangle in that silly scrotum to keep them slightly below body temperature, but they do seem dangerously exposed. Microwaves from the cell phone might raise their temperature a bit. The most that could happen would be an infinitesimal decrease in the fertility rate. At least that's in the right direction. Sanjay Gupta is a good writer, and he's probably a good doctor. I listen to him whenever I can. My mother would have said, "He's a REAL doctor," as opposed to the PhD scientist kind. Trust me Mom, an M.D. is not a scientist.

3. MORE CELL PHONES: WHAT THE MEDIA DIDN'T TELL YOU.

Here's the conversation I have several times a day with total strangers: Caller: do you use a wired earphone? BP: No. Caller: would it be too much trouble? BP: No. Caller: Wouldnt you be safer? BP: No. Caller: How do you know? BP: Quantum physics; all cancers are caused by mutant strands of DNA. Electromagnetic radiation can't create mutant strands of DNA unless the frequency is at or higher than the blue limit of the visible spectrum the near-ultraviolet. The frequency of cell phone radiation is about 1 million times too low. Caller: Wow! When did this news break? BP: Albert Einstein let it out in 1905. Robert Millikan, considered to be the world's top physics experimentalist, spent a decade constructing an experiment to test it. It confirmed Einstein's theory perfectly. Caller: I'm shocked! Are you sure this is right? BP: Virtually the entire modern world rests on it. Caller: Why am I just hearing about this? BP: Because Sanjay didn't tell you. We all depend on the news media to keep us informed, and the news media all over the world let us down on this one. And we scientists should have been screaming louder.What's New by Bob Parks

al-Qa'bong

The other day I saw a guy drop his cell 'phone as he was crossing the street.  The 'phone landed a block away.

radiorahim radiorahim's picture

Sineed wrote:

This question hasn't been conclusively answered.  I personally prefer to make lengthy phone calls on a landline, and encourage my daughters to do the same.  But a risk has not been found.

Not all types of EM radiation are the same:

Thing is, that even on a "landline", most folks these days are using so-called "cordless" phones, which are also low powered radio transmitting devices.   Actually, the cordless phones that are on the market today are probably "worse" than cellphones...most operate in the 5 or 6 GHz. radio band.

I keep one old-fashioned "wired" telephone in the basement just in case we have a power outage for an extended period of time.

I think there's a focus on cellphones because a) the media is technologically illiterate and b) the NIMBYism around cell towers.

Fidel

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the largest medical body in the world focussing on human infertility, stated last year that just 4 hours working with a wi-fi enabled lap-top is enough to cause DNA damage to sperm.

Canadian Harold Harvey was one of the first scientists to discover the effects of acid rain a long time ago and waited decades for Ottawa to do anything about it. He's now warning us about detrimental effects of microwaves to human beings.

If you love your kids, then get a real internet connection and use ethernet cable to connect your home network. And turn off the wi-fi baloney in laptops. It's a shitty way to connect to the internet anyway. They won't be able to surf FB while sat in the school cafeteria, but life is tuff all over.

Refuge Refuge's picture

Uh oh. I haven't had a land line in almost 10 years!

Fidel

I wouldn't push it to 20 or 30.  Better late than never.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Fidel wrote:

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the largest medical body in the world focussing on human infertility, stated last year that just 4 hours working with a wi-fi enabled lap-top is enough to cause DNA damage to sperm.

Not true. A scientist made an oral presentation to a special-interest panel at the annual meeting of the ASRM on this research, but the study has not been endorsed by the Society, and only an abstract of the study was accepted for publication in the Society's journal, Fertility and Sterility. As far as I can determine, the study itself has not been published in any peer-reviewed Journal.

Moreover, the conclusion of the study was that exposure to laptops decreases progressive motility and induces DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro. The authors speculate that "keeping the laptops (WiFi mode) on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility. Further studies are needed to test this hypothesis..."

Unionist

Refuge wrote:
Uh oh. I haven't had a land line in almost 10 years!

Smart move. Land lines have been shown to cause cabin fever. I've got the links here somewhere...

 

Fidel

M. Spector wrote:

Fidel wrote:

The American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the largest medical body in the world focussing on human infertility, stated last year that just 4 hours working with a wi-fi enabled lap-top is enough to cause DNA damage to sperm.

Not true. A scientist made an oral presentation to a special-interest panel at the annual meeting of the ASRM on this research, but the study has not been endorsed by the Society, and only an abstract of the study was accepted for publication in the Society's journal, Fertility and Sterility. As far as I can determine, the study itself has not been published in any peer-reviewed Journal.

Moreover, the conclusion of the study was that exposure to laptops decreases progressive motility and induces DNA fragmentation in human spermatozoa in vitro. The authors speculate that "keeping the laptops (WiFi mode) on the lap near the testes may result in decreased male fertility. Further studies are needed to test this hypothesis..."

Those darned scientists! They are always stating things about human biology, DNA and the like.

And who are the authorities on this subject? The cell phone companies' hired guns? They don't want to know.

There is corporate science, and then there is basic research. They are not the same. Science has become a quest for funding for too many starving scientists.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Refuge wrote:
Uh oh. I haven't had a land line in almost 10 years!

Smart move. Land lines have been shown to cause cabin fever. I've got the links here somewhere...

 Anyone heard any good cancer jokes lately?

Doctor: I've got your test results and some bad news. You have cancer and Alzheimer's.

Man: Boy, am I lucky! I was afraid I had cancer!

[url=[/url]">http://www.dnaindia.com/health/report_cell-phone-exposure-damages-dna-br...

ha ha!

Spectrum Spectrum's picture

The question I might have was indicated by pointing towards "DNA computing" which allows one to ask the question if such science is available to demonstrate "the affect on the DNA structure" by affecting the environment? Those Frankenfish?

Cellphone-bia? What is the reality? Let's have some real science here.

Quote:

The AquAdvantage Salmon with a non-transgenic Atlantic salmon

AquaBounty TechnologiesThe “AquAdvantage Salmon,” in the background, with a non-transgenic Atlantic salmon of the same age.

Frankenfish Phobia

The direct manipulation of matter states in regard to DNA, in order to direct the outcome "of a species?" Can frequencies(what range) affect the DNA?

It beyond me to speculate in the area....so what is the right question to ask here? There are obviously some within this forum who are qualified to set up the approach as to asking the right question.

Fidel

WHO says cellphone use ‘possibly carcinogenic'

Quote:
The WHO had previously said there was no established evidence for a link between cellphone use and cancer. ... some evidence suggested a link between an increased risk for glioma, a type of brain cancer, and mobile phone use.

It's time to GET OFF THE PHONE!

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Anybody have stats on the alarming increase in gliomas?

Fidel

Here's what I want to know: If there is a possibility for deadly disease resulting from some profiteering industry's products, then why take chances in the mean time? What is more important than human health? Is chatting with someone over the cell phone more important than avoiding the odds for dying an agonizing death from brain cancer?

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The stats are inconclusive and confusing, one major study finding pretty much no effect, another finding less incidence of tumor in heavy users (and had serious methodological flaws).  Not sure why WHO is doing a turnabout - there doesn't seem to be any new information. 

Of course, media is pumping up and exaggerating what they've said - there's a small possibility, and that it should be investigated further.  And that they've also cited a number of other possible carcinogens more probable that aren't getting nearly the attention - including car exhaust. 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

The reality is that nothing can be done now because every where in the world they have been sold by the millions prior to any health studies being required to show that there was little or no risk to humans.  Like with many chemicals being released there is no thought to ensuring safety before they are promoted and sold to an ill informed public.  Central planning by hedge fund managers with no oversight by democratically elected politicians seems to be just as scary as central planning by any other elite group in world history.  

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Northern Shoveler wrote:

Like with many chemicals being released there is no thought to ensuring safety before they are promoted and sold to an ill informed public.

One big difference, though: The cell phone companies and their families all use the product. They at least have a self-interest in not knowingly producing a dangerous product.

polly bee

It is interesting that there is such heated debate here about this.  It would appear that even if it's largely inconclusive, there is enough evidence to suggest that there may be a problem. 

With the "anti-vax" threads, it was suggested that fear mongering and alarmism regarding vaccination would lead to children dying.  Fair enough.  But I don't get the cell phone thing.  What catastrophe will befall humanity if we choose not to use a mobile phone?

It is possible that cell phones may be causing an increase in brain cancer - at least accoring to some scientists.  Best to err on the side of caution, no?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
But I don't get the cell phone thing.  What catastrophe will befall humanity if we choose not to use a mobile phone?

 

How am I supposed to text all my friends without a mobile phone? I must be in constant contact with them at all times.

 

Quote:
 Best to err on the side of caution, no?

 

If you mean cell phone users making their own choices? Sure. If you mean some kind of nanny-state prohibition on cell phones, well, maybe we should do the same for computers, .mp3 players, flat-screen TVs, and a host of other things.

 

Now that I think about it, can anyone name ANY manufactured product that has been declared 100% harmless in all situations? If not, I think we need to err on the side of caution for a lot more than just cell phones.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

polly bee wrote:

It is interesting that there is such heated debate here about this.  It would appear that even if it's largely inconclusive, there is enough evidence to suggest that there may be a problem. 

With the "anti-vax" threads, it was suggested that fear mongering and alarmism regarding vaccination would lead to children dying.  Fair enough.  But I don't get the cell phone thing.  What catastrophe will befall humanity if we choose not to use a mobile phone?

It is possible that cell phones may be causing an increase in brain cancer - at least accoring to some scientists.  Best to err on the side of caution, no?

There's no catastrophe either way - it's just irritating to have to listen to "the sky is FAAAAALLLLLLIIIIINNNNNGGGG!!!!!!   BE AFRAID!!!!!!!" all over the place when you're more likely to get hit by a car crossing the street than you are to develop a brain cancer from using a cel phone moderately - and most of us are moderate users.  I could probably live day to day without my cel, and don't use it much at home, really, but in some of my work situations it makes my life much, much easier.  So, like flying, driving on the highway, eating cookies and a variety of other things I might do now and then, I'm probably still going to use my cel phone - unless and until somebody comes up with something more concrete.

Snert Snert's picture

The graphic above, of a cell phone and a package of cigarettes makes me wonder:  who here would support a ban on NEW smokers?  I understand there could be difficulties with trying to ban smoking among dependent smokers, but you're not dependent if you're never allowed to try it.  We'd save a hell of a lot more lives than getting rid of cell phones.

polly bee

Timebandit wrote:

There's no catastrophe either way - it's just irritating to have to listen to "the sky is FAAAAALLLLLLIIIIINNNNNGGGG!!!!!!   BE AFRAID!!!!!!!" all over the place......

 

Oh.  See, I haven't seen or heard that all over the place.  We must be reading different threads.

al-Qa'bong

I don't have a cell phone.  I don't need one.  It's annoying enough having regular phones ringing at all hours with someone trying to sell me insurance or asking my views on stuff about which I don't care.

Moreover, if I had a cell phone, I'd risk the possiblility of becoming one of those zombies who walk around staring at their palms all day.

polly bee

My question was specific to cell phones.

 

Quote:

But I don't get the cell phone thing.  What catastrophe will befall humanity if we choose not to use a mobile phone?

 

 

al-Qa'bong

polly bee wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

There's no catastrophe either way - it's just irritating to have to listen to "the sky is FAAAAALLLLLLIIIIINNNNNGGGG!!!!!!   BE AFRAID!!!!!!!" all over the place......

 

Oh.  See, I haven't seen or heard that all over the place.  We must be reading different threads.

Fluoridated water, the CIA, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11, etc., etc.

On the other hand...

The Sky Really Is Falling

Quote:

The rapid and terrifying acceleration of global warming, which is disfiguring the ecosystem at a swifter pace than even the gloomiest scientific studies predicted a few years ago, has been confronted by the power elite with two kinds of self-delusion. There are those, many of whom hold elected office, who dismiss the science and empirical evidence as false. There are others who accept the science surrounding global warming but insist that the human species can adapt. Our only salvation—the rapid dismantling of the fossil fuel industry—is ignored by both groups. And we will be led, unless we build popular resistance movements and carry out sustained acts of civil disobedience, toward collective self-annihilation by dimwitted pied pipers and fools.

Chris Hedges

Running around squawking about all the monsters hiding under one's bed is a distraction when there are genuine dangers, like global warming and international financiers, to concern us all.

Tommy Paine is right: these conspiraphiles are probably part of the conspiracy to distract us.

Tommy_Paine

"Tommy Paine is right: these conspiraphiles are probably part of the conspiracy to distract us."

Yeah, but in this case, I hate cell phones, so I'll choose to believe this one.  

Ya know, I think that if heavy use of a cell phone can cause brain cancer, then constant exposure to incidental use, say being close to a cell phone user, can cause cancer too.  I'm talking of course, of second hand cell phone use. 

I think cell phone use should be banned in playgrounds, indoor public places, bars, eateries, trains and where ever you'd enjoy a good cell phone.

 

 

Northern Shoveler Northern Shoveler's picture

Timebandit wrote:

 all over the place when you're more likely to get hit by a car crossing the street than you are to develop a brain cancer from using a cel phone moderately - and most of us are moderate users.  

Thats quite the bar you use for determining whether to engage in an activity.  I really hope that cell phones are a fuck of a lot more safe than cars but thank you so very much for your condescending reassurance that it is not as bad a walking across the street.

Great science by the way.  Your conclusion was right even if ridiculously irrelevant. I am very relieved to hear that the deaths will be less than 15,000 a year.  Whew.

Money mouth

Quote:

 

Pedestrian accident lawyer firms in Canada deal with thousands of claims settlements annually for those injured by motor vehicles whilst walking along the highway. Fifteen thousand pedestrians are killed or injured every year on Canada’s roads. School children and the elderly are the most vulnerable with half of all pedestrian fatalities occurring in the late afternoon. Excessive speed of the vehicle involved is responsible for over a third of all accidents which are the biggest single cause of accidental death amongst those under 30 years old.

 

Slumberjack

Tommy_Paine wrote:
I think cell phone use should be banned in playgrounds, indoor public places, bars, eateries, trains and where ever you'd enjoy a good cell phone. 

This would inevitably lead to a future ridden with conflict in the streets, between smokers and non-smoking cell phone users jockeying for lebensraum.

Tommy_Paine

"This would inevitably lead to a future ridden with conflict in the streets, between smokers and non-smoking cell phone users jockeying for lebensraum."

And yet hedge fun CEO's walk around at large.   It's a crazy world, ain't it?

Fidel

Snert wrote:
Now that I think about it, can anyone name ANY manufactured product that has been declared 100% harmless in all situations? If not, I think we need to err on the side of caution for a lot more than just cell phones.

I'm not afraid to use landline phones. I'll even use a cellular phone in an emergency when a landline is not handy.

But I generally make a habit of never holding any new fangled EMF emitting device to my ear no matter how good the corporate marketing propaganda is.

I must admit that cell phones seemed like a really cool idea when they came out with 2G and then 3G phones. I was impressed. I used to work writing test software for 2G-3G cellular protocols for a couple of big telcos. I really liked the idea of cell phones then. But I never owned one and can't remember why I chose not to. It wasn't because of the health warnings then because I wasn't aware at the time. There were people at work talking about it though. My supervisor never owned a cell phone or a PDA. We used to snicker a little at the Nortel guys who were all req'd to carry Nortel phones on their hips or wherever. We were just not that important, we'd say to one another.

Just refuse to take unnecessary chances with your brain and your health. Our health is worth more than all of the cell phones and cell phone company profits around the world combined. Yes it's true, and never forget that.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

M. Spector wrote:

Anybody have stats on the alarming increase in gliomas?

Nobody responded, so I did some Googling and found this:

Quote:
Incidence rates of most leading cancers are decreasing, including female breast, prostate, colorectal and lung cancers. Incidence rates are also decreasing for other sites, including corpus and uterus; not otherwise specified; ovary; oral cavity and pharynx; stomach; brain and other nervous system; and urinary bladder.

[url=http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2007&chid=73&c.... National Cancer Institute[/url]

Fidel

Which US states are the data taken from and over what time frame? 

Because Lennart Hardell said that for his study results, tumor risk was highest for those in the 15-year latency period. I think it's similar to longer periods for a few known carcinogens.

Mobile phones were not widely used in the 1980s. Wall Street and Bay Street guys used them then, and they were big and bulky things. Widespread cell phone use didn't begin to occur until the 1990s. NTT DoCoMo in Japan introduced the first fully internet accessible mobile phone network by 1999. I was there in California and saw 3G phone tech at a conference in 2000.

But even in the mid to late 1990s, I don't remember so many kids or people in general using cell phones as now. Everyone and their dog has one today. 

Life, the unive...

I don't have a horse in this race, but because of my age and unlike most of you I can clearly remember when suggesting smoking might cause cancer was considered wacko, out there stuff.  Doctors smoked - at the office, we were given all kinds of assurances it was not only safe, it might even be healthy, all kinds of public figures smoked and declared it okay and cool.  Then when the tide started to turn a bit they would trot out some 95 year old that smoked several packs a day to show how crazy the claims were

So call me a little skeptical when great big, profit driven companies tell me there is nothing to see here and try to ridicule any suggestion that maybe there might be some sort of problem however small.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Call me skeptical when people claim cell phone use may possibly cause brain cancer, when brain cancer is decreasing while cell phone use is increasing.

Aristotleded24

Life, the universe, everything wrote:
I don't have a horse in this race, but because of my age and unlike most of you I can clearly remember when suggesting smoking might cause cancer was considered wacko, out there stuff.  Doctors smoked - at the office, we were given all kinds of assurances it was not only safe, it might even be healthy, all kinds of public figures smoked and declared it okay and cool.  Then when the tide started to turn a bit they would trot out some 95 year old that smoked several packs a day to show how crazy the claims were

So call me a little skeptical when great big, profit driven companies tell me there is nothing to see here and try to ridicule any suggestion that maybe there might be some sort of problem however small.

Another example you could use would be all the lawn and garden pesticides that were introduced decades ago that municipalities across Canada have banned. I'm sure you've read "Silent Spring?"

Pages

Topic locked