6 ms·

WHO: Cell phone use can increase cancer risk

57 points by antirez 15y ago

packetlss 15y ago
Press release: http://com.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf http://com.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf (PDF) Site very slow at the moment, mirror: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56731822/pr208-E http://www.scribd.com/doc/56731822/pr208-E
- rl41 15y ago
  Thanks for this, much more informative.
davecap1 15y ago
Good thing kids (and many non-kids) these days text instead of talking on their phones. Any idea if the radiation is decreased when holding the phone in your hand while there is no voice data going in/out? I would assume it is...
- jff 15y ago
  Ah, but they hide the phones under their desks, so the teacher can't see them. Hide the phones in their laps. We're breeding a generation of Luddites by allowing phone-using kids to sterilize themselves :)
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - squasher 15y ago
    Teachers <i>always</i> know. They just sometimes choose not to fight that battle.
- mustpax 15y ago
  Signal strength drops with the square of the distance so it matters quite a bit how far you're holding the device.
crikli 15y ago
They're classifying cell phone use as a "Group 2B" carcinogen, which means it's "possibly" carcinogenic. The most famous residents of Group 2B carcinogens are DDT, lead, and nickel. Pickled veggies from Asia are also included. Beware the kimchi of death. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinoge... EDIT: I also want to add that this is yet another case of mass media distorting a report that is careful to identify a) that there is no causality, just correlation and b) what exactly the classification means. That headline is linkbait bullocks: that report does not conclude that "cell phone use can increase cancer risk." It essentially says, "We're acknowledging that it might. Possibly. Maybe."
- tptacek 15y ago
  Does the pickle thing correlate with epidemiology? Are there spikes in the rates of certain cancers in Asia, the way stomach cancer spikes where people eat lots of smoked fish? Because as I understand it, pickled vegetables are extremely common in Japan and Korea. Is GI cancer?
  - wooster 15y ago
    Stomach cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer in Korea. Here's a map of the death rate, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the cancer rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stomach_cancer_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2004.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stomach_cancer_world_map_-... And an article on salty diet and stomach cancer in South Korea: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-salty-diet-idUSTRE62N4KX20100324 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-salty-diet-idUS...
    - silentbicycle 15y ago
      It may also have something to do with the high salt intake that accompanies many of those pickled vegetables.
      - tptacek 15y ago
tptacek 15y ago
Skeptical take from last year: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.ht...
- neuroelectronic 15y ago
  Wow, they were skeptical of a report before it even came out. Those skeptics must also be psychics!
codenerdz 15y ago
"When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body." Thats nearly impossible with data pushes being sent at indefinite intervals :( So much for keeping the phone in the front jeans pockets..
hugh3 15y ago
Cellphones have been in wide use for twenty-something years now. Surely if there were any significant increase in the risk of cancer it'd be showing up epidemiologically? As well as a lack of epidemiological evidence, we still don't have a plausible mechanism as to how mobile phones might cause brain cancer -- the energies involved just don't seem to be sufficient to actually do anything bad. I've seen promising students waste their PhDs on trying to figure out how mobile phones might be able to cause cancer, only to come up dry. Incidentally, a handy hint for students (and others) choosing research topics: avoid asking those questions where one possible answer is interesting and the other one is boring. If you ask "Does x cause y, and x causing y would be a big deal whereas x being unrelated to y is completely boring, then that's not a good topic for PhD work.
- zzzeek 15y ago
  > we still don't have a plausible mechanism as to how mobile phones might cause brain cancer Cellphone Use Tied to Brain Activity (nytimes.com): http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-...
  - evilduck 15y ago
    "Dr. Volkow said that the latest research is preliminary and does not address questions about cancer or other heath issues"
    - zzzeek 15y ago
      Emphasis on "might". It's a hypothetical component of a mechanism, that's all. It proves that the tiny emissions from a phone do have a measurable effect, as opposed to none whatsoever. "the energies involved just don't seem to be sufficient to actually do anything bad." This statement cannot be confirmed - the energies are sufficient to do..."something". Whether it's bad or not, unknown.
      - zzzeek 15y ago
ejs 15y ago
Ehh dont worry about "Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic to humans" when there is already a list "Group 1 - The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogen... Example: "Alcoholic beverages"
atirip 15y ago
Ok, everybody can do the math: 1) What it is: "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use." 2) What's the risk: "Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and most aggressive malignant primary brain tumor in humans, involving glial cells and accounting for 52% of all parenchymal brain tumor cases and 20% of all intracranial tumors. Despite being the most prevalent form of primary brain tumor, GBMs occur in only 2–3 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and North America." 3) How much the risk increases: "The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period)." Anybody worried? Really?
justinph 15y ago
Where can I buy a lead iPhone case? Crap, lead is on the list too!
Create 15y ago
Actually some worries are not about DNA damage/cancer, but mostly about demyelinisation due to the simmer cooking of the brain. Last time I checked, there still wasn't any serious public research on the topic.
corin_ 15y ago
This has reminded me of the great "kill or cure" site based on articles published by the Daily Mail (a shitty UK newspaper), http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ On a less humerous note, as a child (around a decade ago) I wasn't allowed a mobile for a few years of wanting one for fear that it could cause cancer, specially when around a still-developing brain (mine). I suspect it will be a long time before anything is confirmed either way.
fleitz 15y ago
This is the way I look at it, there is a major source of ionizing radiation in the sky, known to cause cancer, it's powerful enough of a source that it can make your face feel hot, yet other than the heat of the battery my face has never gotten hot from a cell phone, so before I stop using my cell phone I'd stop going outside. I'd bet that the heat from the battery is actually more dangerous than the transmitter. That radiation source, it's call the sun and outputs about 100W / sq meter in the visible / UV spectrum of which UV is ionizing. To compare a cell phone outputs about 500 milliwatts, or about 3 orders of magnitude difference in output. The fact that you can charge your cell phone with a small solar cell is all you need to know about the differences in radiation.
- guan 15y ago
  Yeah, this emphasis on cancer is strange. Since cell phone radiation is non-ionizing, I would be a lot more worried about all the potential health effects except cancer.
- ars 15y ago
  Different frequencies of light have quite different effect. Visible and UV light don't penetrate skin. Microwaves do.
  - wcoenen 15y ago
    Visible light definitely does penetrate the skin. A typical light bulb shines through your fingers, making the veins visible: http://www.flickr.com/photos/exquisitur/2699850137/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/exquisitur/2699850137/
    - ars 15y ago
      All light does penetrate to some degree. Some photons of light will penetrate steel if your source is bright enough. But it's a question of how much.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]

57 points by antirez 15y ago

Press release: http://com.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf http://com.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf (PDF) Site very slow at the moment, mirror: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56731822/pr208-E http://www.scribd.com/doc/56731822/pr208-E

rl41 15y ago
Thanks for this, much more informative.

davecap1 15y ago

Good thing kids (and many non-kids) these days text instead of talking on their phones. Any idea if the radiation is decreased when holding the phone in your hand while there is no voice data going in/out? I would assume it is...

jff 15y ago
Ah, but they hide the phones under their desks, so the teacher can't see them. Hide the phones in their laps. We're breeding a generation of Luddites by allowing phone-using kids to sterilize themselves :)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- squasher 15y ago
  Teachers <i>always</i> know. They just sometimes choose not to fight that battle.
mustpax 15y ago
Signal strength drops with the square of the distance so it matters quite a bit how far you're holding the device.

crikli 15y ago

They're classifying cell phone use as a "Group 2B" carcinogen, which means it's "possibly" carcinogenic. The most famous residents of Group 2B carcinogens are DDT, lead, and nickel. Pickled veggies from Asia are also included. Beware the kimchi of death. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinoge... EDIT: I also want to add that this is yet another case of mass media distorting a report that is careful to identify a) that there is no causality, just correlation and b) what exactly the classification means. That headline is linkbait bullocks: that report does not conclude that "cell phone use can increase cancer risk." It essentially says, "We're acknowledging that it might. Possibly. Maybe."

tptacek 15y ago
Does the pickle thing correlate with epidemiology? Are there spikes in the rates of certain cancers in Asia, the way stomach cancer spikes where people eat lots of smoked fish? Because as I understand it, pickled vegetables are extremely common in Japan and Korea. Is GI cancer?
- wooster 15y ago
  Stomach cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer in Korea. Here's a map of the death rate, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the cancer rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stomach_cancer_world_map_-_Death_-_WHO2004.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stomach_cancer_world_map_-... And an article on salty diet and stomach cancer in South Korea: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-salty-diet-idUSTRE62N4KX20100324 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-salty-diet-idUS...
  - silentbicycle 15y ago
    It may also have something to do with the high salt intake that accompanies many of those pickled vegetables.
    - tptacek 15y ago

tptacek 15y ago

Skeptical take from last year: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.ht...

neuroelectronic 15y ago
Wow, they were skeptical of a report before it even came out. Those skeptics must also be psychics!

codenerdz 15y ago

"When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body." Thats nearly impossible with data pushes being sent at indefinite intervals :( So much for keeping the phone in the front jeans pockets..

hugh3 15y ago

Cellphones have been in wide use for twenty-something years now. Surely if there were any significant increase in the risk of cancer it'd be showing up epidemiologically? As well as a lack of epidemiological evidence, we still don't have a plausible mechanism as to how mobile phones might cause brain cancer -- the energies involved just don't seem to be sufficient to actually do anything bad. I've seen promising students waste their PhDs on trying to figure out how mobile phones might be able to cause cancer, only to come up dry. Incidentally, a handy hint for students (and others) choosing research topics: avoid asking those questions where one possible answer is interesting and the other one is boring. If you ask "Does x cause y, and x causing y would be a big deal whereas x being unrelated to y is completely boring, then that's not a good topic for PhD work.

zzzeek 15y ago
> we still don't have a plausible mechanism as to how mobile phones might cause brain cancer Cellphone Use Tied to Brain Activity (nytimes.com): http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-changes-in-brain-activity/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-...
- evilduck 15y ago
  "Dr. Volkow said that the latest research is preliminary and does not address questions about cancer or other heath issues"
  - zzzeek 15y ago
    Emphasis on "might". It's a hypothetical component of a mechanism, that's all. It proves that the tiny emissions from a phone do have a measurable effect, as opposed to none whatsoever. "the energies involved just don't seem to be sufficient to actually do anything bad." This statement cannot be confirmed - the energies are sufficient to do..."something". Whether it's bad or not, unknown.
    - zzzeek 15y ago

ejs 15y ago

Ehh dont worry about "Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic to humans" when there is already a list "Group 1 - The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogen... Example: "Alcoholic beverages"

atirip 15y ago

Ok, everybody can do the math: 1) What it is: "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use." 2) What's the risk: "Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and most aggressive malignant primary brain tumor in humans, involving glial cells and accounting for 52% of all parenchymal brain tumor cases and 20% of all intracranial tumors. Despite being the most prevalent form of primary brain tumor, GBMs occur in only 2–3 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and North America." 3) How much the risk increases: "The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period)." Anybody worried? Really?

justinph 15y ago

Where can I buy a lead iPhone case? Crap, lead is on the list too!

Create 15y ago

Actually some worries are not about DNA damage/cancer, but mostly about demyelinisation due to the simmer cooking of the brain. Last time I checked, there still wasn't any serious public research on the topic.

corin_ 15y ago

This has reminded me of the great "kill or cure" site based on articles published by the Daily Mail (a shitty UK newspaper), http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/ On a less humerous note, as a child (around a decade ago) I wasn't allowed a mobile for a few years of wanting one for fear that it could cause cancer, specially when around a still-developing brain (mine). I suspect it will be a long time before anything is confirmed either way.

fleitz 15y ago

This is the way I look at it, there is a major source of ionizing radiation in the sky, known to cause cancer, it's powerful enough of a source that it can make your face feel hot, yet other than the heat of the battery my face has never gotten hot from a cell phone, so before I stop using my cell phone I'd stop going outside. I'd bet that the heat from the battery is actually more dangerous than the transmitter. That radiation source, it's call the sun and outputs about 100W / sq meter in the visible / UV spectrum of which UV is ionizing. To compare a cell phone outputs about 500 milliwatts, or about 3 orders of magnitude difference in output. The fact that you can charge your cell phone with a small solar cell is all you need to know about the differences in radiation.

guan 15y ago
Yeah, this emphasis on cancer is strange. Since cell phone radiation is non-ionizing, I would be a lot more worried about all the potential health effects except cancer.
ars 15y ago
Different frequencies of light have quite different effect. Visible and UV light don't penetrate skin. Microwaves do.
- wcoenen 15y ago
  Visible light definitely does penetrate the skin. A typical light bulb shines through your fingers, making the veins visible: http://www.flickr.com/photos/exquisitur/2699850137/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/exquisitur/2699850137/
  - ars 15y ago
    All light does penetrate to some degree. Some photons of light will penetrate steel if your source is bright enough. But it's a question of how much.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]