5 ms·

Why Cell Phones Can't Cause Cancer, but Bananas Can

19 points by Mitchhhs 11y ago

rajadigopula 11y ago
"For instance, a Danish study followed 420,000 people over 20 years and found no link between cancer and mobile phone use "- Studied Mobile phone use for over 20 Years!?
- GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
  When do you think mobile phones were invented.
  - rajadigopula 11y ago
    It's not when they were invented. It's about - when is the relation between cancer and mobile phones established and studies started in that direction. My best guess it's definitely not before 20 years!
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      The first mobile phones were demonstrated in the 1970s, so there was plenty of time for someone to go "huh, I wonder if that'd cause health problems" over the course of a couple decades.
  - oh_sigh 11y ago
    ~10% of Danish people were using cell phones in 1995? That seems pretty high...
- henrikschroder 11y ago
  1995 was the tipping point when "everyone" got a mobile phone in Denmark, so that seems about right.
- frankzinger 11y ago
  The first mobile network in Denmark went up in 1981 so it is quite possible.
justinsb 11y ago
If you're free to assume a particular model, you can prove whatever you want under that model. The debate is as to whether that model is correct.
- rrss1122 11y ago
  The particular model chosen in the article reflects physical reality, and the physical reality of it is that cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation. There is no debate as to whether this is correct, because this is how we see the world operating. As the article states, you only start running into ionizing radiation at much higher energy levels, the kind you are exposed to just walking outside in sunlight. The link between sun exposure and skin cancer is well-established. The link between cell phone exposure and any cancer is non-existent.
  - holri 11y ago
    Maybe it reflects what we understand today. But we also know that we know very, very little.
  - justinsb 11y ago
    I agree with you as to the conclusion: I don't believe that cell-phones cause notably higher rates of cancer. I believe that based on the studies, as I think you do. The problem with the article, and perhaps the reasoning in your comment, is that it assumes that ionizing radiation is the sole cause of cancer. The article implies that cancer studies that consider anything other than ionizing radiation are a waste of time and money. I believe the debate as to whether there are non-radiation causes, catalysts or contributors to cancer is very much open, and I appreciate the work that people do to investigate these possibilities.
  - hetman 11y ago
    And if we can prove that ionising radiation is the only thing that can cause cancers then we're golden in applying this model.
hetman 11y ago
Complex systems exhibit all sorts of interesting emergent behaviours. Many things in living systems, like the way proteins fold, can be incredibly intricate. There are thousands of complex chemical pathways that need to work in synchronicity. We don't even fully understand all the factors influencing the appearance of cancers, many new exciting discoveries are still being made. Even things like resonance in certain circumstances could bridge some of the gap in power levels discussed. It is the height of hubris to suggest there was never even any point in checking if mobile phones could cause cancer. Those studies were not a waste; science is full of surprises and empirical evidence is still the loudest voice science has.
- yarper 11y ago
  Agreed - for example people with HPV are more likely to get cancer seemingly unlinked to their exposure to ionising radiation. I do however tend to agree with the author that cell-phones causing cancer is hokum.
zzzeek 11y ago
the cellphone causing cancer theory has nothing to do with ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation. it has to do with the fact that cell phones are shown to alter brain activity in the area localized to where the phone is physically placed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ (nyt background story: 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-...)
- brador 11y ago
  Fascinating stuff! Could it be possible the phone near the ear that was on muted call was causing static electricity in the hair in the ear canal, causing the spike in brain glucose in that region as the brain senses it?
  - zzzeek 11y ago
    seems a whole lot more simple that the brain and nervous system are electromagnetic in nature (any google result, such as http://www.caltech.edu/news/neurobiologists-find-weak-electrical-fields-brain-help-neurons-fire-together-1671 http://www.caltech.edu/news/neurobiologists-find-weak-electr...), and EMF induces current.
gregonicus 11y ago
Looks like ionization is not the only criteria for health impact. See "DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields" and the conclusion: "The wide frequency range of interaction with EMF is the functional characteristic of a fractal antenna, and DNA appears to possess the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self symmetry. These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA with EMF in the environment, and the DNA damage could account for increases in cancer epidemiology, as well as variations in the rate of chemical evolution in early geologic history" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072

19 points by Mitchhhs 11y ago

"For instance, a Danish study followed 420,000 people over 20 years and found no link between cancer and mobile phone use "- Studied Mobile phone use for over 20 Years!?

GFK_of_xmaspast 11y ago
When do you think mobile phones were invented.
- rajadigopula 11y ago
  It's not when they were invented. It's about - when is the relation between cancer and mobile phones established and studies started in that direction. My best guess it's definitely not before 20 years!
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    The first mobile phones were demonstrated in the 1970s, so there was plenty of time for someone to go "huh, I wonder if that'd cause health problems" over the course of a couple decades.
- oh_sigh 11y ago
  ~10% of Danish people were using cell phones in 1995? That seems pretty high...
henrikschroder 11y ago
1995 was the tipping point when "everyone" got a mobile phone in Denmark, so that seems about right.
frankzinger 11y ago
The first mobile network in Denmark went up in 1981 so it is quite possible.

justinsb 11y ago

If you're free to assume a particular model, you can prove whatever you want under that model. The debate is as to whether that model is correct.

rrss1122 11y ago
The particular model chosen in the article reflects physical reality, and the physical reality of it is that cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation. There is no debate as to whether this is correct, because this is how we see the world operating. As the article states, you only start running into ionizing radiation at much higher energy levels, the kind you are exposed to just walking outside in sunlight. The link between sun exposure and skin cancer is well-established. The link between cell phone exposure and any cancer is non-existent.
- holri 11y ago
  Maybe it reflects what we understand today. But we also know that we know very, very little.
- justinsb 11y ago
  I agree with you as to the conclusion: I don't believe that cell-phones cause notably higher rates of cancer. I believe that based on the studies, as I think you do. The problem with the article, and perhaps the reasoning in your comment, is that it assumes that ionizing radiation is the sole cause of cancer. The article implies that cancer studies that consider anything other than ionizing radiation are a waste of time and money. I believe the debate as to whether there are non-radiation causes, catalysts or contributors to cancer is very much open, and I appreciate the work that people do to investigate these possibilities.
- hetman 11y ago
  And if we can prove that ionising radiation is the only thing that can cause cancers then we're golden in applying this model.

hetman 11y ago

Complex systems exhibit all sorts of interesting emergent behaviours. Many things in living systems, like the way proteins fold, can be incredibly intricate. There are thousands of complex chemical pathways that need to work in synchronicity. We don't even fully understand all the factors influencing the appearance of cancers, many new exciting discoveries are still being made. Even things like resonance in certain circumstances could bridge some of the gap in power levels discussed. It is the height of hubris to suggest there was never even any point in checking if mobile phones could cause cancer. Those studies were not a waste; science is full of surprises and empirical evidence is still the loudest voice science has.

yarper 11y ago
Agreed - for example people with HPV are more likely to get cancer seemingly unlinked to their exposure to ionising radiation. I do however tend to agree with the author that cell-phones causing cancer is hokum.

zzzeek 11y ago

the cellphone causing cancer theory has nothing to do with ionizing vs. non-ionizing radiation. it has to do with the fact that cell phones are shown to alter brain activity in the area localized to where the phone is physically placed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3184892/ (nyt background story: 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-...)

brador 11y ago
Fascinating stuff! Could it be possible the phone near the ear that was on muted call was causing static electricity in the hair in the ear canal, causing the spike in brain glucose in that region as the brain senses it?
- zzzeek 11y ago
  seems a whole lot more simple that the brain and nervous system are electromagnetic in nature (any google result, such as http://www.caltech.edu/news/neurobiologists-find-weak-electrical-fields-brain-help-neurons-fire-together-1671 http://www.caltech.edu/news/neurobiologists-find-weak-electr...), and EMF induces current.

gregonicus 11y ago

Looks like ionization is not the only criteria for health impact. See "DNA is a fractal antenna in electromagnetic fields" and the conclusion: "The wide frequency range of interaction with EMF is the functional characteristic of a fractal antenna, and DNA appears to possess the two structural characteristics of fractal antennas, electronic conduction and self symmetry. These properties contribute to greater reactivity of DNA with EMF in the environment, and the DNA damage could account for increases in cancer epidemiology, as well as variations in the rate of chemical evolution in early geologic history" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21457072