Junk Science - Cell Phones

[Xiahou]

Garbage like this really gets my goat for some reason. You have some "scientist" coming out with a non-study claiming that cell phones might give you brain cancer. They admit there is no evidence to support the claim, but they sent out an advisory regardless with the ludicrous justification of "it's better safe than sorry".

"The question is do you want to play Russian roulette with your brain," she said in an interview from her cell phone while using the hands-free speaker phone as recommended. "I don't know that cell phones are dangerous. But I don't know that they are safe."

Anyone want to take a stab at carrying out moronic arguments like this to other aspects of life?

[Whacker]

I'd give it a shot, but my head hasn't been working right lately because of this huge brain tumor from cell phone usage.

[drone]

I always keep the cell phone on my right ear. Got to keep my left-brain functional, I'm a geek.

[Somebody Else]

I've heard that water is dangerous if taken in large quantities. Best not to drink it.

I also hear oxygen is flammable, we should ban it to stop the terrorists.

[PBI]

Well I guess a good example of this would be the MMR vaccine scare. One discredited but widely publicised study linking the MMR vaccine with autism was enough to scare many parents out of giving their kids the vaccine against all the medical advice. Despite the fact that even if the study wasn't nonsense putting your kids at risk of measles would still be worse.

Of course, a more controversial example would be climate change, where a lot of people seem to be willing to dismiss the view of the broader scientific community in favour of a few fringe scientists who just happen to be telling them what they want to hear.

[Geoffrey S]

It's certainly worth investigating, as the case of smoking showed. But for now it appears to be a non-issue, and largely treated as such by scientists - though apparently, not by sensationalist writers of these kind of articles. No real news yet, so they make it.

[BigTex]

Quite a few things that despite all logic associating the two have yet to be clinically proven. Clinically proving cell phones lead to increased risk of brain tumors would take a generation. Having microwaves that close to the brain probably isnt the best thing, but then it's for short periods. Now I'd like to see a study on constant use of blue tooths, microwaves that close to the brain for hours and hours on end is not a good thing. The article is a load of bull though, sensationalism for attention is all, I highly doubt the cancer risk of short term cellphone use is much at all.

There will always be things in this world that no matter the lack of clinical studies on the topics I will firmly believe. For a very few clinical studies on even the importance of large amounts of protien while strength training. Yet all research and logic pointed to it.

Of course, a more controversial example would be climate change, where a lot of people seem to be willing to dismiss the view of the broader scientific community in favour of a few fringe scientists who just happen to be telling them what they want to hear.

The Godwin is strong with you child.

Also look in to the 100+ viruses found in the monkey pancreases used to grow most vaccines. Pay close attention SIV, v-79 iirc. The current mass used methods to create vaccines is hardly completely safe.

[Don Corleone]

Xiahou, why are you upset? It all comes down to the way funding for studies is conducted. When her research period was up, and she had nothing, she had to start scrambling for something.

But as far as idiocy masquerading as science, I'll see your brain-cancer and raise you in the cell-phone suit, this time with a bid of "hands-free".

Every study that links cell-phone usage to higher risk of accidents shows a much stronger correlation to the diverted attention of the driver than the mobility reduction generated by holding a phone to one's ear.

And yet, throughout the country, service providers such as AT&T Wireless and Verizon are buying themselves a law that will make them rich, by paying legislators to enact hands-free legislation. There is no evidence that using a hands-free device is any less dangerous than using a traditional mobile, yet here we are, passing laws that people have to buy bluetooth headsets (or wired, if you want to go low-tech).

Meanwhile, it is still legal to shave, apply makeup, eat a cheeseburger or read the newspaper while driving, and I believe I saw all four just between driving to and from work yesterday.

Morons.

[Navaros]

It's not junk science that cell phones cause cancer.

Science bought & paid for by the big cell phone corps that claims that cell phones don't cause cancer: that is junk science.

Microwaves were not meant to be used in such a way was they are used in cell phones, and the human body is not designed to tolerate microwaves being used against it in such a way.

This subject is not nearly so funny and trivial as many posters are making it out to be. Better to take it seriously now rather than pay the severe health consequences later for not having done so.

[Xiahou]

It's not junk science that cell phones cause cancer.;

Science bought & paid for by the big cell phone corps that claims that cell phones don't cause cancer: that is junk science.

Microwaves were not meant to be used in such a way was they are used in cell phones, and the human body is not designed to tolerate microwaves being used against it in such a way.

This subject is not nearly so funny and trivial as many posters are making it out to be. Better to take it seriously now rather than pay the severe health consequences later for not having done so.

No, it's total garbage. There are no credible studies that demonstrate cell phone usage being linked to any kind of cancer. Even the university scientists responsible for the alert in the original post admit there is currently no evidence for their alarmism. They recognize the lack of evidence, yet say people shouldn't use them anyhow 'just in case'.

Along similar lines, I'd like to alert backroom members to the dangers of cancer from their keyboards. No, there's no evidence supporting that statement- but just to be safe, you shouldn't use them anyhow.

[Ronin]

No, it's total garbage. There are no credible studies that demonstrate cell phone usage being linked to any kind of cancer. Even the university scientists responsible for the alert in the original post admit there is currently no evidence for their alarmism. They recognize the lack of evidence, yet say people shouldn't use them anyhow 'just in case'.

Along similar lines, I'd like to alert backroom members to the dangers of cancer from their keyboards. No, there's no evidence supporting that statement- but just to be safe, you shouldn't use them anyhow.

Are you equating hitting your fingers on a keypad to having a microwave emitter next to your head?

getting hit with extra radiation is never good for you....at least in the small experience of this layman over here...

avoiding such a situation whenever possible even if there is no definitive proof is called common sense where I come from...not garbage.

[Xiahou]

Are you equating hitting your fingers on a keypad to having a microwave emitter next to your head?

In that there's no evidence of either causing cancer, nor does it even make sense that they could ever do so? Yes.

1. CANCER: WHAT EINSTEIN KNEW ABOUT CELL PHONES.
By now everyone has heard the news frenzy over Ronald Herberman, Director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, advising faculty and staff to limit cell phone use because there is no proof that it's not a cancer risk. Nonsense! All cancer agents act by disrupting chemical bonds. In a classic 2001 op-ed LBL physicist Robert Cahn explained that Einstein won the 1905 Nobel Prize in Physics for showing that cell phones can't cause cancer. The threshold energy of the photoelectric effect, for which Einstein won the prize, lies at the extreme blue end of the visible spectrum in the near ultraviolet. The same near-ultraviolet rays can also cause skin cancer. Red light is too weak to cause cancer. Cell-phone radiation is 10,000 times weaker.

link

Or if you want something that explains it more in a little more depth, look here.

[Navaros]

No, it's total garbage. There are no credible studies that demonstrate cell phone usage being linked to any kind of cancer. Even the university scientists responsible for the alert in the original post admit there is currently no evidence for their alarmism. They recognize the lack of evidence, yet say people shouldn't use them anyhow 'just in case'.

There are plenty of credible studies that prove cellphones cause cancer. You are just picking the answers that you want to hear, even though they are incorrect.

[Viking]

link

Appears as much of an overstatement. In science, there is always room for surprises. There is also some controversy surrounding radars, whether they are able to cause children born with damaged limbs or not; and radars does indeed operate with much longer wavelengths than red.

[Xiahou]

Appears as much of an overstatement. In science, there is always room for surprises. There is also some controversy surrounding radars, whether they are able to cause children born with damaged limbs or not; and radars does indeed operate with much longer wavelengths than red.

I'd love to read about that. Got any links?

The science is pretty simple. If radiation is non-ionizing, it's not strong enough to be able to strip ions from a cell's molecules. This is what can lead to cancer. If radiation is non-ionizing, then that radiation won't cause cancer. It's basic physics.

[Viking]

I'd love to read about that. Got any links?

The science is pretty simple. If radiation is non-ionizing, it's not strong enough to be able to strip ions from a cell's molecules. This is what can lead to cancer. If radiation is non-ionizing, then that radiation won't cause cancer. It's basic physics.

Hmm, this BBC link is the best I am able to come up with; and it is most uncertain what caused the birth defects. Appears to be mainly a national issue..

[rory_20_uk]

I'd love to read about that. Got any links?

The science is pretty simple. If radiation is non-ionizing, it's not strong enough to be able to strip ions from a cell's molecules. This is what can lead to cancer. If radiation is non-ionizing, then that radiation won't cause cancer. It's basic physics.

Not quite that simple.

There are those that state that large enough magnetic fields (i.e. power lines) can alter very subtly the body's biochemistry as ions will be slightly polarised by the field. Over a long enough timespan this could cause damage to individuals. I imagine that the reasoning about phones has the same basis.

Offhand I've no links - sorry.

[Xiahou]

Not quite that simple.

There are those that state that large enough magnetic fields (i.e. power lines) can alter very subtly the body's biochemistry as ions will be slightly polarised by the field. Over a long enough timespan this could cause damage to individuals. I imagine that the reasoning about phones has the same basis.

Offhand I've no links - sorry.

I'm not sure that I understand you. Ions, by definition are positive or negative- how do magnetic fields polarize them?

Regardless, if EMF causes cancer it is by an entirely unknown mechanism as studies show EMF does not cause any harmful levels of cell damage. There are a few small studies that indicate a minimal correlation, but many don't isolate other possible causes adequately. I tend to doubt studies that try to show a link- you can't avoid electro-magnetic fields. Anything that uses electric gives them off and they permeate the air as TV and radio signals. If they have any significant effect on cancer, we'd all have died from it by now.

[Craterus]

To be fair, this is the reason I don't use a mobile phone. I think I probably will after a few more years have passed. Maybe 20 since the first mobile phones and if no-one's died of anything caused by them, I'll get one.

[Viking]

I'm not sure that I understand you. Ions, by definition are positive or negative- how do magnetic fields polarize them?

If I understood what he meant by 'polarization', then think of water which is neutral, yet dipolar.

[Husar]

If I understood what he meant by 'polarization', then think of water which is neutral, yet dipolar.

Uh, wait a second, water is not an ion, water is a molecule that consists of several atoms, now atoms can be positive or negative and then they are called ions. Basically putting a cellphone to your head heats your head up because the electromagnetic field affects the water in your body, just like a microwave oven, only weaker and on a different frequency but I read about up to 1°C more temperature. Whether this effect is unhealthy or not I do not allow myself to judge, the heat shouldn't be since the summer also heats me up as does a fever, too much of it is bad as we all know of course.
Then again, is there anything that does NOT cause cancer?

And in other, related news, they found that very high doses of vitamin C would actually reduce the amount of cancer cells in mice or rats, which sounds similar to what a certain Dr. Rath has been saying for years but he was dismissed as a junk scientist.
I'm curious where this ends.

[Viking]

Uh, wait a second, water is not an ion, water is a molecule that consists of several atoms, now atoms can be positive or negative and then they are called ions.

Yes, I said it was neutral. Molecules can also be ions. If the electron(s) are pulled more in one direction than others, the molecule/atom will have a slightly different charge depending on which side you approach it; as is the case with water molecules.