9 ms·

This is a better study than previous ones, in that it used "environmental" levels of radiation, rather than blasting subjects with an amount of radiation equiva

This is a better study than previous ones, in that it used "environmental" levels of radiation, rather than blasting subjects with an amount of radiation equivalent to laying your head on top of a cell tower for 22 hours a day. However: out of 817 individuals in the control group, 2 had benign tumors, 2 had malignant tumors, 1 had glial cell hyperplasia, and 2 had malignant glial tumors. Out of 409 individuals in the highest-dosed group, 4 had benign tumors, 0 had malignant tumors, 0 had glial cell hyperplasia, and 3 had malignant glial tumors. https://imgur.com/a/VeEUb https://imgur.com/a/VeEUb Rates are elevated, but given the differences in population sizes and the relatively very small differences in rates involved, this study looks like a very good candidate for the decline effect that's been plaguing similar studies for a while now. (e.g. a regression to the mean; that the effect numbers, being small, would disappear in subsequent studies.) Any potential link between cell phones, or wifi, and cancer, still has the fundamental problem that we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically over the last 15 years in populations all over the world, and ... we haven't. While there have been more and more findings on other causes for cancer (and preventable mortality, like heart disease), glial cancers aren't increasing in any manner suggestive of a link to ubiquitous environmental microwave radiation.

ebikelaw 9y ago
50 V/m 19h per day for your whole life is definitely not normal exposure. Edit: back of the envelope, 50 V/m is equivalent to standing 2m away from LTE base station with 60W power and 18 dBi antenna gain.
- dfox 9y ago
  Are there even LTE base stations with 60W capable PA? IIRC for GSM the highest supported power was 30W.
  - topspin 9y ago
    According to this[1] LTE macrocells range from 20-69W "at the antenna connector." When they operate at the high end of that range, however, they're serving wide, sparely populated areas from atop large towers; you can't usually operate that much power where cell density is high. And the GP is correct; both the e-field strengths and the exposure intervals in this study are far beyond what people actually experience. [1] https://sites.google.com/site/lteencyclopedia/lte-radio-link-budgeting-and-rf-planning https://sites.google.com/site/lteencyclopedia/lte-radio-link...
    - blattimwind 9y ago
      Huh? The ambient e-field is about 50-300 V/m, depending on <all conditions> and can be much stronger during a thunderstorm. However, those are essentially static fields.
      - topspin 9y ago
        I guess it's understood that we're discussing high frequency electromagnetic waves, as opposed to static electric fields.
        blattimwind 9y ago
        But why is the e-field strength an interesting metric for this? Power over [biological] volume/mass/surface makes more sense, no?
        topspin 9y ago
        Hmm. RF power density in free space is a function of V/m: W/m^2 = (V/m)^2 / 377. The constant at the end is the impedance of free space. If you wish to compute the power absorbed by a rat you'd need to know its impedance, or perhaps the impedance of some specific organ. That's probably a tough thing to calculate in a definitive manner given the number of conceivable variables. And does it add anything to the conclusion? All rats are likely to impede about the same at some frequency, so whatever the answer is it's effectively a constant; one that a rat can't do much about while remaining a conventional rat. Why not simply rely on the easily measured/reproduced V/m and assume that all such rats are experiencing the same power flux?
        blattimwind 9y ago
        Makes sense, thanks
tathougies 9y ago
Moreover, the journalistic source link tried to make shwannomas seem dangerous, but a quick reading about the tumor via google suggests that the vast majority of shwannomas are non-cancerous or benign.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  Well, even if shwannomas are a relatively minor health risk, it would be pretty big news if low-level microwave radiation was causing them. At present -- as far as I know -- there's no credible hypothetical mechanism by which microwave radiation at those levels can affect human biological tissue in that way. So, if it turns out that it is having that effect after all, then scientists have got a very interesting problem to investigate, and it would make for a much stronger argument in favor of restricting cellular technology just in case it had other health effects we're unaware of. (I specified human here because it's an important difference. People have much thicker skulls and chest cavities than rodents, so we would expect that we'd need significantly higher doses of radiation to induce the same effects that are being studied in rodents.)
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
Maybe I'm reading something wrong but in your image it shows 19 total malignant brain tumors (Meningeal/Glial) across all exposure groups (n=1631) versus 4 across the control group (n=817). 4/817 = .004 19/1631 = .011 Malignant tumors in rats exposed from 5-50 RFR appear to be 2.75x more likely to have some kind of malignant brain cancer than the control group. That hardly seems inconsequential.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  I'm not sure you can compare the groups in that way without distorting the answer to the question being asked. In a previous study, a side-effect was discovered in which the gender of the researchers handling the rodents had some impact on their tumor rates. They have a more acute sense of smell and male hormones induced a higher level of stress which caused a higher rate of tumors. So, let's suppose that approximately 1 member of each group will develop a tumor for some reason unrelated to the effect being studied. If you have 5 groups, one control and 4 experiments, then potentially you'll see a 4x effect increase if you lump the experiment groups together. This would only hold of course if the effect isn't directly proportional to the population size -- if it's proportional to the number of groups instead. So, I dunno, maybe. But I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions from numbers for "all experimental groups" vs "one control group". And while the percentages and ratios involved can look conclusive (varying from 0% to 2.2% -- that's an infinite percentage increase!), the effects in absolute numbers are still quite small.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    I mean I'm just working with the data as presented. We can and should look for confounding influences - hence why reproducability is so important. However a mean 2.7x rate increase is not trivial if we start thinking about possible epidemiological impacts. If anything this warrants replication.
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      On that point I agree without reservation. Based on the evidence available right now, I don't think there's a link between cellular technology and cancer. If there was about one more study like this one -- from an overall reputable research outfit, with a good population size -- I'd start to reconsider. And if another study is done and doesn't find the same effects, then that's still another interesting case of the decline effect. So, either way, it's a win.
ksec 9y ago
I just wanted to offer some related story on cancer. A long time ago I had the experience to join a alternative medicine (TCM : Traditional Chinese Medicine) group relating to cancer. They said human body is an extremely complex, despite our advance in science we still can not fully understand and explain it. Just like how little we know about our brain, and hormones. We went to a rural village in China, where they are one of the most heavy smokers. Well not really heavy, but like minimum 2 packs per day. Most of them have been smoking for more then 40 years, so this is no small amount of consumption. There were once a study trying to find links between smoking an cancer. They went to this place and discover their age of dying are mostly past 80, and no one had been treated or diagnosed with cancer. So the results were against the evidence that heavy smoking results in higher rate of cancer of early death. They wrote down Chinese may not subjected to this rule in their report. Which we know is bogus, Chinese are no different to any other humans, so what make this village so "special". What we then see is their day in day out routine, all of them are farmers, they get up early, they work ( exercises ), they eat very clean, all food and veg are fresh. As well as fish, they smile and sing while they work. And they are all happy being there. After dinner it is early sleep. Along with the unpolluted air, all these is basically a very healthy life style that most people in City or developed countries failed to achieve. What the leader then said, we dont have a cure for cancer, or we have. But what we offer is something that most of you wont be able to do. Cancer is an reaction of your body that were caused by multiple factors, and mainly and mostly by you, yourself. Your energy and mind dictates many things. Just like there are many many cases where Western medicine or treatment has said you only have maximum 6 months to live while the patients, with their will power were able to go 3 or 5 years more. Your negative energy and stress are your biggest link to cancer. All other factors were mostly there as multipliers. The whole starting point of TCM is that you should try and not get sick in the first place, and in the case you do, instead of trying to kill off whatever symptoms you have, TCM try to tune your body to better accommodate it and hopefully would self repair it. There were many other details and little story, but I try to keep it short. I know this may be an unpopular thing, and I wouldn't normally have share it. Until I read about Steve Jobs saved Scott Forstall with Acupuncture in the news, then I realise may be not everyone in the west are against TCM.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
wnissen 9y ago
Right. We already did this experiment, as a society. In the old analog days, people were beaming an actual watt straight into their heads, Bluetooth still being a decade in the future. Now the max is something like an eighth of that (.125 watts), and the towers are much closer so the actual power involved is probably another order of magnitude lower. You would have seen a spike in brain cancer and then a drop, and it would be obvious.
- hammock 9y ago
  Beaming a watt into their heads? With what technology?
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    The first mobile phones were attached to internal combustion engines.
    - archgoon 9y ago
      True fact. The first car phones were done in 1946.
  - jacquesm 9y ago
    Omnidirectional antenna held in close proximity to their heads. Water absorbs that radiation pretty good and turns it into heat.
    - hammock 9y ago
      Are you talking about radios or TV antennas? Don't cell phones today still have antennas? - Are they lower power now than they were?
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
icantdrive55 9y ago
"Any potential link between cell phones, or wifi, and cancer, still has the fundamental problem that we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically over the last 15 years in populations all over the world, and ... we haven't" 1. I don't know where to get accurate world wide data concerning brain cancer. That is accurate information? 2. In the past fifteen years, in the United States, we have cleaned up smog in many areas. 3. Many people have stopped smoking, or cut back signifantly. I have a feeling all forms (chew, snuff, cigars, etc.) of tobacco use have gone down in 15 years. 4. Maybe the above factors are offsetting any rise in cancer do to cell phones ? (I don't know the US rate for brain cancer, let alone the worlds.) 5. Antidotially, I have heard too many doctors give carefully worded warning. The doctors just give antidotal warning. In my county, a doctor quietly warned people. He just said two heavy cell phone users, in the past two weeks, had temporal tumors. He said all the studies have proven cell phones are safe, so take this warning with caution. 6. My cell phone came with a booklet. I thought---great--a instruction manual? Something that is just history. Opened it up, and it was 34 pages of studies, aand legalese, all designed to protect the cell phone manufacturer from litigation. 7. I don't dismiss these studies. I have a weird feeling their might be a link. I would love to see people putting their phone down. At this point, I don't even think a real cancer scare would cause most people to put down their devices.
colordrops 9y ago
> we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically wouldn't have to be dramatic. > and ... we haven't. reference?
- scott_s 9y ago
  In the United States, the overall cancer death rate has declined since the early 1990s. The most recent SEER Cancer Statistics Review, updated in September 2016, shows that cancer death rates decreased by: 1.8% per year among men from 2004 to 2013 1.4% per year among women from 2004 to 2013 1.4% per year among children ages 0–19 from 2009 to 2013 From https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics. Yes, that's US only, but the US has built a lot of cellular and wifi infrastructure during that time of cancer rate decline.
  - jessaustin 9y ago
    Eh, at that level, an actual effect from mobile phones could have been masked by a bigger decrease in some other effect. Besides, cancer diagnosis is often delayed relative to exposure to carcinogens. I'm keeping my tinfoil hat firmly in place, thank you.
    - scott_s 9y ago
      Which you're free to do. But you can't cite cancer rates as the cause for your tinfoil hat. (And should perhaps raise the question of what is causing your tinfoil hat?)
      - cmrdporcupine 9y ago
        You quoted death by cancer rates, not cancer rates
  - colordrops 9y ago
    Aren't the cancers proposed to be caused by non-ionizing radiation quite specific? Overall rates wouldn't say much about that.
cgb223 9y ago
Thank you for calming down the hypochondriac in me
shsuudjdjjdjs 9y ago
If I remember correctly, this rammazini institute is also the one place that found a link between cancer and aspartame, when everyone else found no link. Just checked and, yep, it is. It seems from what I've read about their studies that they are just gonna figure out how to say there is a link, even when the evidence is not very good.
- Dotnaught 9y ago
  The EPA evidently doesn't think much of the Ramazzini Institute's scientific rigor: https://blog.epa.gov/blog/tag/ramazzini-institute/ https://blog.epa.gov/blog/tag/ramazzini-institute/
chapill 9y ago
>we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically over the last 15 years in populations all over the world, and ... we haven't That's not a logical conclusion. You are asserting that all other causes of cancer would remain static for 15 years. Tobacco use specifically is at all time lows.
perl4ever 9y ago
A basic issue that I am not clear on regarding statistics - do we say that 400 or 800 is a pretty good size sample, and therefore our results should be accurate and repeatable, or do we say that the control group's cases of cancer (population x incidence) were not several hundred, and therefore a difference of a few cases is obviously meaningless? My intuition is that if you did the control portion a hundred times, you would not get exactly the same incidence of cancer, but I never took a statistics course.

ebikelaw 9y ago

50 V/m 19h per day for your whole life is definitely not normal exposure. Edit: back of the envelope, 50 V/m is equivalent to standing 2m away from LTE base station with 60W power and 18 dBi antenna gain.

dfox 9y ago
Are there even LTE base stations with 60W capable PA? IIRC for GSM the highest supported power was 30W.
- topspin 9y ago
  According to this[1] LTE macrocells range from 20-69W "at the antenna connector." When they operate at the high end of that range, however, they're serving wide, sparely populated areas from atop large towers; you can't usually operate that much power where cell density is high. And the GP is correct; both the e-field strengths and the exposure intervals in this study are far beyond what people actually experience. [1] https://sites.google.com/site/lteencyclopedia/lte-radio-link-budgeting-and-rf-planning https://sites.google.com/site/lteencyclopedia/lte-radio-link...
  - blattimwind 9y ago
    Huh? The ambient e-field is about 50-300 V/m, depending on <all conditions> and can be much stronger during a thunderstorm. However, those are essentially static fields.
    - topspin 9y ago
      I guess it's understood that we're discussing high frequency electromagnetic waves, as opposed to static electric fields.
      - blattimwind 9y ago
        But why is the e-field strength an interesting metric for this? Power over [biological] volume/mass/surface makes more sense, no?
        topspin 9y ago
        Hmm. RF power density in free space is a function of V/m: W/m^2 = (V/m)^2 / 377. The constant at the end is the impedance of free space. If you wish to compute the power absorbed by a rat you'd need to know its impedance, or perhaps the impedance of some specific organ. That's probably a tough thing to calculate in a definitive manner given the number of conceivable variables. And does it add anything to the conclusion? All rats are likely to impede about the same at some frequency, so whatever the answer is it's effectively a constant; one that a rat can't do much about while remaining a conventional rat. Why not simply rely on the easily measured/reproduced V/m and assume that all such rats are experiencing the same power flux?
        blattimwind 9y ago
        Makes sense, thanks

tathougies 9y ago

Moreover, the journalistic source link tried to make shwannomas seem dangerous, but a quick reading about the tumor via google suggests that the vast majority of shwannomas are non-cancerous or benign.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
Well, even if shwannomas are a relatively minor health risk, it would be pretty big news if low-level microwave radiation was causing them. At present -- as far as I know -- there's no credible hypothetical mechanism by which microwave radiation at those levels can affect human biological tissue in that way. So, if it turns out that it is having that effect after all, then scientists have got a very interesting problem to investigate, and it would make for a much stronger argument in favor of restricting cellular technology just in case it had other health effects we're unaware of. (I specified human here because it's an important difference. People have much thicker skulls and chest cavities than rodents, so we would expect that we'd need significantly higher doses of radiation to induce the same effects that are being studied in rodents.)

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

Maybe I'm reading something wrong but in your image it shows 19 total malignant brain tumors (Meningeal/Glial) across all exposure groups (n=1631) versus 4 across the control group (n=817). 4/817 = .004 19/1631 = .011 Malignant tumors in rats exposed from 5-50 RFR appear to be 2.75x more likely to have some kind of malignant brain cancer than the control group. That hardly seems inconsequential.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
I'm not sure you can compare the groups in that way without distorting the answer to the question being asked. In a previous study, a side-effect was discovered in which the gender of the researchers handling the rodents had some impact on their tumor rates. They have a more acute sense of smell and male hormones induced a higher level of stress which caused a higher rate of tumors. So, let's suppose that approximately 1 member of each group will develop a tumor for some reason unrelated to the effect being studied. If you have 5 groups, one control and 4 experiments, then potentially you'll see a 4x effect increase if you lump the experiment groups together. This would only hold of course if the effect isn't directly proportional to the population size -- if it's proportional to the number of groups instead. So, I dunno, maybe. But I'd be reluctant to draw any conclusions from numbers for "all experimental groups" vs "one control group". And while the percentages and ratios involved can look conclusive (varying from 0% to 2.2% -- that's an infinite percentage increase!), the effects in absolute numbers are still quite small.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  I mean I'm just working with the data as presented. We can and should look for confounding influences - hence why reproducability is so important. However a mean 2.7x rate increase is not trivial if we start thinking about possible epidemiological impacts. If anything this warrants replication.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    On that point I agree without reservation. Based on the evidence available right now, I don't think there's a link between cellular technology and cancer. If there was about one more study like this one -- from an overall reputable research outfit, with a good population size -- I'd start to reconsider. And if another study is done and doesn't find the same effects, then that's still another interesting case of the decline effect. So, either way, it's a win.

ksec 9y ago

I just wanted to offer some related story on cancer. A long time ago I had the experience to join a alternative medicine (TCM : Traditional Chinese Medicine) group relating to cancer. They said human body is an extremely complex, despite our advance in science we still can not fully understand and explain it. Just like how little we know about our brain, and hormones. We went to a rural village in China, where they are one of the most heavy smokers. Well not really heavy, but like minimum 2 packs per day. Most of them have been smoking for more then 40 years, so this is no small amount of consumption. There were once a study trying to find links between smoking an cancer. They went to this place and discover their age of dying are mostly past 80, and no one had been treated or diagnosed with cancer. So the results were against the evidence that heavy smoking results in higher rate of cancer of early death. They wrote down Chinese may not subjected to this rule in their report. Which we know is bogus, Chinese are no different to any other humans, so what make this village so "special". What we then see is their day in day out routine, all of them are farmers, they get up early, they work ( exercises ), they eat very clean, all food and veg are fresh. As well as fish, they smile and sing while they work. And they are all happy being there. After dinner it is early sleep. Along with the unpolluted air, all these is basically a very healthy life style that most people in City or developed countries failed to achieve. What the leader then said, we dont have a cure for cancer, or we have. But what we offer is something that most of you wont be able to do. Cancer is an reaction of your body that were caused by multiple factors, and mainly and mostly by you, yourself. Your energy and mind dictates many things. Just like there are many many cases where Western medicine or treatment has said you only have maximum 6 months to live while the patients, with their will power were able to go 3 or 5 years more. Your negative energy and stress are your biggest link to cancer. All other factors were mostly there as multipliers. The whole starting point of TCM is that you should try and not get sick in the first place, and in the case you do, instead of trying to kill off whatever symptoms you have, TCM try to tune your body to better accommodate it and hopefully would self repair it. There were many other details and little story, but I try to keep it short. I know this may be an unpopular thing, and I wouldn't normally have share it. Until I read about Steve Jobs saved Scott Forstall with Acupuncture in the news, then I realise may be not everyone in the west are against TCM.

thaumaturgy 9y ago

wnissen 9y ago

Right. We already did this experiment, as a society. In the old analog days, people were beaming an actual watt straight into their heads, Bluetooth still being a decade in the future. Now the max is something like an eighth of that (.125 watts), and the towers are much closer so the actual power involved is probably another order of magnitude lower. You would have seen a spike in brain cancer and then a drop, and it would be obvious.

hammock 9y ago
Beaming a watt into their heads? With what technology?
- jessaustin 9y ago
  The first mobile phones were attached to internal combustion engines.
  - archgoon 9y ago
    True fact. The first car phones were done in 1946.
- jacquesm 9y ago
  Omnidirectional antenna held in close proximity to their heads. Water absorbs that radiation pretty good and turns it into heat.
  - hammock 9y ago
    Are you talking about radios or TV antennas? Don't cell phones today still have antennas? - Are they lower power now than they were?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]

icantdrive55 9y ago

"Any potential link between cell phones, or wifi, and cancer, still has the fundamental problem that we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically over the last 15 years in populations all over the world, and ... we haven't" 1. I don't know where to get accurate world wide data concerning brain cancer. That is accurate information? 2. In the past fifteen years, in the United States, we have cleaned up smog in many areas. 3. Many people have stopped smoking, or cut back signifantly. I have a feeling all forms (chew, snuff, cigars, etc.) of tobacco use have gone down in 15 years. 4. Maybe the above factors are offsetting any rise in cancer do to cell phones ? (I don't know the US rate for brain cancer, let alone the worlds.) 5. Antidotially, I have heard too many doctors give carefully worded warning. The doctors just give antidotal warning. In my county, a doctor quietly warned people. He just said two heavy cell phone users, in the past two weeks, had temporal tumors. He said all the studies have proven cell phones are safe, so take this warning with caution. 6. My cell phone came with a booklet. I thought---great--a instruction manual? Something that is just history. Opened it up, and it was 34 pages of studies, aand legalese, all designed to protect the cell phone manufacturer from litigation. 7. I don't dismiss these studies. I have a weird feeling their might be a link. I would love to see people putting their phone down. At this point, I don't even think a real cancer scare would cause most people to put down their devices.

colordrops 9y ago

> we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically wouldn't have to be dramatic. > and ... we haven't. reference?

scott_s 9y ago
In the United States, the overall cancer death rate has declined since the early 1990s. The most recent SEER Cancer Statistics Review, updated in September 2016, shows that cancer death rates decreased by: 1.8% per year among men from 2004 to 2013 1.4% per year among women from 2004 to 2013 1.4% per year among children ages 0–19 from 2009 to 2013 From https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/understanding/statistics. Yes, that's US only, but the US has built a lot of cellular and wifi infrastructure during that time of cancer rate decline.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Eh, at that level, an actual effect from mobile phones could have been masked by a bigger decrease in some other effect. Besides, cancer diagnosis is often delayed relative to exposure to carcinogens. I'm keeping my tinfoil hat firmly in place, thank you.
  - scott_s 9y ago
    Which you're free to do. But you can't cite cancer rates as the cause for your tinfoil hat. (And should perhaps raise the question of what is causing your tinfoil hat?)
    - cmrdporcupine 9y ago
      You quoted death by cancer rates, not cancer rates
- colordrops 9y ago
  Aren't the cancers proposed to be caused by non-ionizing radiation quite specific? Overall rates wouldn't say much about that.

cgb223 9y ago

Thank you for calming down the hypochondriac in me

shsuudjdjjdjs 9y ago

If I remember correctly, this rammazini institute is also the one place that found a link between cancer and aspartame, when everyone else found no link. Just checked and, yep, it is. It seems from what I've read about their studies that they are just gonna figure out how to say there is a link, even when the evidence is not very good.

Dotnaught 9y ago
The EPA evidently doesn't think much of the Ramazzini Institute's scientific rigor: https://blog.epa.gov/blog/tag/ramazzini-institute/ https://blog.epa.gov/blog/tag/ramazzini-institute/

chapill 9y ago

>we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically over the last 15 years in populations all over the world, and ... we haven't That's not a logical conclusion. You are asserting that all other causes of cancer would remain static for 15 years. Tobacco use specifically is at all time lows.

perl4ever 9y ago

A basic issue that I am not clear on regarding statistics - do we say that 400 or 800 is a pretty good size sample, and therefore our results should be accurate and repeatable, or do we say that the control group's cases of cancer (population x incidence) were not several hundred, and therefore a difference of a few cases is obviously meaningless? My intuition is that if you did the control portion a hundred times, you would not get exactly the same incidence of cancer, but I never took a statistics course.