6 ms·
"Physics shows that cell phones cannot cause cancer"
- limmeau 16y agoThe commenters agree mainly on one thing: that the article is poorly researched because it only deals with cancer by direct ionization of DNA.
- edge17 16y agoI'm not terribly literate in this field, so I'm curious what other ways you're referring to? I was taught that cancer's caused by transcription errors, which tend to increase with direct ionization of DNA.
- powrtoch 16y agoI think the point was that the article assumes that the only thing that can cause transcription errors is ionization. This assumption is known to be false, since viruses can also mess with DNA transcription. Obviously no one is suggesting that cell phones create viruses, but the point is that ruling out one avenue does not rule out the destination.
- sliverstorm 16y ago> Obviously no one is suggesting that cell phones create viruses It sure would be some kind of dystopian cracker's paradise though- imagine being able to use computer viruses to make people viruses that jump from their computers to living beings!
- bch 16y agoCosta Nostra. Who ordered a large with everything?
- limmeau 16y agoI'm not a biologist, either, but there are e.g. repair enzymes, which may denaturate and lose their function when heated. Reader "Richard2010", comment #2, named a few more mechanisms for causing cancer using non-ionizing radiation. Whether they are practical, I don't know.
- pasbesoin 16y agoNon-ionizing radiation can influence bonds and, as a result, chemical reactions. Bonds can be thought of as "vibrating", for example, and non-ionizing radiation can influence this behavior. Think of it, then, as a catalyst. Even where it is not directly effecting ionization, it may be accelerating chemical reactions that are adverse to an organism's well being. As an imagined example, what happens when you have a chlorine or other halide group in the vicinity? Perhaps a particular non-ionizing radiation environment increases the probability of their doing damage by chemical reaction. I've been away from what chemistry I did know for far too long, but even that bit led me to believe the "it's non-ionizing" arguments are, at best, incomplete.
- zzzeek 16y agoThe mechanism would involve existing cancer cells becoming activated - not the creation of new cancer cells via DNA mutation. Some background on studies about cancer cells that possibly exist within some or all of us already is in this NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/research/29cancer.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/health/research/29cancer.h... .
- nodata 16y agoand what does biology say? and science?
- roc 16y agoGood luck with that; Bob Park has been beating that drum for decades. As in a disconcerting number of other areas of American life: objective facts don't seem to have any bearing on the discussion.
- carbocation 16y agoThis is false. Hear me out. I think that the notion of cell phones causing cancer is bunk for two reasons, but I recognize that there is a third possibility. First, the reasons why I think cell phones don't cause cancer: (1) Physics. Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, so cell phones don't directly lead to strand breakage in your DNA or protein adducts. (2) Epidemiology. The body of evidence, on balance, does not support the notion that exposure to cell phones increases your risk for cancer. We are getting hugely exposed to this radiation, and if it had an effect, you'd strongly expect to see it. Perhaps we're a few decades away from being able to appreciate any risk since brain tumors more commonly affect those later on in life, but the epidemiology doesn't support the connection at this time. There. I don't think that cell phones cause cancer, and I have given 2 reasons why I believe that. However, I am willing to acknowledge that biology is nothing if not interesting. For example, imagine an enzyme that was designed to (a) receive microwave radiation, putting it into a slightly different conformation, which then (b) hydrolyzes ATP in order to (c) cut DNA. Why would this enzyme exist? Who knows; I don't think it does exist. But I am saying that physics cannot tell us that "low energy thing X" cannot do "high energy thing Y." It only tells us that the connection, if any, must be mediated by a third party. In other words, sure, microwaves cannot cause strand breakage, but they could be part of a signalling cascade that ultimately results in strand breakage. Keep in mind that I don't believe in any of this garbage, but I do believe that it's within the realm of possibility and therefore we actually do still need epidemiology and molecular biology.
- roc 16y agoImportant fact 2: No study has ever shown a correlation between the rise in cell phone usage and any rise in cancer rates. If there were some unknown indirect method by which cell phone radiation causes cancer, where is all the cancer? Because no study has ever found it.
- carbocation 16y agoI actually considered making that fact #1, since I personally consider it to be more convincing. At any rate, we agree.
- 16y ago
- karzeem 16y agoDoes this kind of reductionism pass for science journalism? I have no idea if cell phones cause cancer. But if I have a model of carcinogenesis and cell phones happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot cause cancer. Knives are proven to cause stab wounds. A sharpened stick is not a knife. That is not proof that sharpened sticks cannot cause stab wounds. Edit: apparently the meaning of what I've written varies depending on what you think my motives are. That means I've been unclear. I'm not advocating the precautionary principle. Kind of the opposite, actually. You cannot prove a negative, which means that it is unscientific to use a model (especially one as poorly understood as the one for carcinogenesis) to "prove" that something cannot happen.
- geuis 16y agoDid you even read the article? What you just said is exactly the initial complaint the author is making about the misapplication of the precautionary principle. "I have no idea if <pigs can fly>. But if I have a model of <flight in biological animals> and <pigs> happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot <fly>. <Birds> are proven to <be biological animals capable of flight>. A <pig> is not a <bird>. That is not proof that <pigs> cannot <be biological animals capable of flight>." Does this make absolutely any sense to you?
- karzeem 16y agoI've only had one cup of tea today, so maybe I wrote the opposite of what I think I wrote, but it might also be that your pseudoscientist detector is catching false positives today. I'm not asserting that cell phones cause cancer, and I'm not asserting that the precautionary principle is wise to apply here. The author writes that the model of carcinogenesis he's selected predicts that cell phones will not cause cancer. He asserts that this is proof that cell phones cannot cause cancer. I'm taking issue with his confidence in making that assertion.
- gloob 16y agoAnd now for something marginally different: "I have no idea if <bats can fly>. But if I have a model of <flight in biological animals> and <bats> happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they cannot <fly>." Notice how if you change what someone is saying, you can make them look silly? And yes, if you are looking at it from the perspective of deductive reasoning, the statement does make perfect sense.
- 1053r 16y agoIt's disingenuous of the author to put "QED" on the end of his article as if this was deductively proven in a mathematical proof. He did make a VERY strong case for cell phones not causing cancer through inducing transcription errors or DNA breakage from ionizing radiation. But he didn't even touch on other possible mechanisms for causing cancer, such as spot heating. Personally, I would guess that if spot heating caused cancer, then the human race would have gone extinct when we discovered fire, but that is neither here nor there. Using terms like "QED" in this context just adds fuel to the fire of the "evolution is just a theory" whackos.
- sz 16y agoQuod erat demonstrandum does not mean "and thus I have proven beyond all shadow of a doubt that I am right"; it means, roughly, "that which was to be demonstrated". The usage of QED is correct here.
- andrewljohnson 16y agoQED is commonly understood to mean "the theorem is proved," and it is used in rigorous mathematical proofs that leave no doubt of their meaning. From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.): The phrase is traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical proof or philosophical argument when that which was specified in the enunciation, and in the setting-out, has been exactly restated as the conclusion of the demonstration. I agree with the parent comment that this rhetorical flourish is misleading, and I agree it gives the non-scientific set a hook to riff on.
- zuggywugg 16y agoDisinformation. No global warming does not exist. They'll say anything to put the public at ease... if the planet was coming to an end, do you think you'd hear about it? No.
- melloajello 16y agoDefinitely read the comments of this one. There is a lot more evidence on this subject than it presented in the article.
- VBprogrammer 16y agoI have carried a mobile phone practically every day since I was 18. If mobile / cell phones do cause cancer I'm not exactly sure what I could do about it. Every smoker in the world knows smoking is strongly linked with cancer, but they still do it. I'd probably be the first in line for the low tar...err...radiation iPhone.
- Adam503 16y agoAll those heroic 9/11 firefighters contracting cancer when the US Federal Government said the air at ground zero was supposedly"safe." There's been too many lies from the US Government claiming some situation, like eating Gulf of Mexico shrimp now, was supposedly safe when everyone knew better.