Toxic cell phone radiation

[podfish]

The research does go on - skepticism about the likelihood of harm from cell phone radiation doesn't equate to denial that it's possible, or to abandonment of studies about its possible effects.

https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ith-cellphones

A new government study found cancerous tumors in the brain and heart of male rats that received high exposure to radiation similar to that emitted by mobile phones.
Although the tumors appeared in low rates, the partial results of the two-year study by the U.S. National Toxicology Program is a major finding, reviving the long debate over the health effects of radio frequency radiation on humans.

The study partially supports a 2011 finding from the World Health Organization, which led the group to classify the radio frequencies regularly emitted by mobile phones in the same group as other potentially cancer-causing substances.

.. but it looks like a lot of Wacco posters who've been worried about it are instead off the hook; only a select group of us are vulnerable!

The new study's conclusion, which was posted Thursday night, is more measured. It noted that pre-cancerous legions on the heart and brain of male rats studied are “considered likely” the result of whole body exposure to cellphone radio frequencies. There were limited instances found in female rats, but the report concluded that they were not “biologically significant.”

[rossmen]

It's true! All the people I know who were regular cell phone users who have died of brain cancer were male! My current partner (female), continues to ask me to be available, perhaps an unconscious conspiracy?

https://thehill.com/policy/technolog...ith-cellphones

.. but it looks like a lot of Wacco posters who've been worried about it are instead off the hook; only a select group of us are vulnerable!

[Barry]

The New York Times posted a video recently saying that so far there is no increase in brain cancers since cell phones have been introduced.

[sharingwisdom]

Attorney Jimmy Gonzalez, a former Marine here addresses his city council in 2012 to warn about the dangers of cellphones.

Two years later, he succumbed to a Stage Four glioblastoma multiform brain cancer next to his left ear, where he used his cell phone. He also developed a tumor in his heart, next to where he kept his cellphone in his suit pocket, as well as a nerve tumor on the palm of his hand, from which he held his phone. This father of two young children died due to his cellphone at age 42.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIlOVJd0lA8

The New York Times posted a video recently saying that so far there is no increase in brain cancers since cell phones have been introduced.

[podfish]

Two years later, he succumbed to a Stage Four glioblastoma multiform brain cancer next to his left ear, where he used his cell phone. He also developed a tumor in his heart, next to where he kept his cellphone in his suit pocket, as well as a nerve tumor on the palm of his hand, from which he held his phone. This father of two young children died due to his cellphone at age 42.

and somehow this self diagnosis didn't persuade mainstream medicine. Anecdotal evidence isn't higher quality just because it's heart-felt and tragic.

[rossmen]

However the quality is enhanced by clear correlation with behavioural patterns. Doesn't make it easy to study though, rats are so small, fitting them with shirts and little paw pockets to hold the mini cell phone is quite pricey.

and somehow this self diagnosis didn't persuade mainstream medicine. Anecdotal evidence isn't higher quality just because it's heart-felt and tragic.

[podfish]

However the quality is enhanced by clear correlation with behavioural patterns. Doesn't make it easy to study though, rats are so small, fitting them with shirts and little paw pockets to hold the mini cell phone is quite pricey.

and even when you do, they spend way less time on their phones than the average person, and more staying in tune with their surroundings.
The symptoms described in Gonzalez - tumors in heart, head and hand - lend themselves to more new-agey, psychosomatic issues anyway. Those are all hugely symbolic body parts leading to a diagnosis of severe life imbalances.

[arthunter]

This has been studied before ....

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...-says/?hp&_r=0

and world scientists are clearly concerned ...

https://electromagnetichealth.org/el...lth-blog/iarc/

[podfish]

This has been studied before ....

https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...-says/?hp&_r=0

and from that article:

Last year, a 13-country study called Interphone, the largest and longest study of the link between cellphone use and brain tumors, found no overall increased risk, but reported that participants with the highest level of cellphone use had a 40 percent higher risk of glioma. (Even if the elevated risk is confirmed, gliomas are relatively rare and thus individual risk remains minimal.)
Most major medical groups, including the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute, have said the existing data on cellphones and health has been reassuring. For years, concerns about the health effects of cellphones have been largely dismissed because the radio frequency waves emitted from the devices are believed to be benign. Cellphones emit nonionizing radiation, waves of energy that are too weak to break chemical bonds or to set off the DNA damage known to cause cancers. Scientists have said repeatedly that there is no known biological mechanism to explain how nonionizing radiation might lead to cancer or other health problems.

so, the take-away is, there's no evidence that this is a significant danger - unlike, say, drowning in a bathtub or being struck by lightning, both of which happen many times a year - and that nonetheless there's ongoing research because, science. Obviously the topic interests researchers and there is more to know. Like GMOs, etc. But the average person doesn't understand averages (statistics have emotional resonance way disconnected with their meanings) so things that aren't risks - in the way that being bitten by a dog is a real risk - still draw too much attention. Spooky things like radiation risks and airplane crashes seem more dangerous than a bicycle ride into town.

[arthunter]

and then there's this ...

https://emfscientist.org/index.php/emf-scientist-appeal

[arthunter]

well let's quote a few of the other paragraphs in this article ...

"The group didn’t conduct any new research but reviewed numerous existing studies that focused on the health effects of radio frequency magnetic fields, which are emitted by cellphones. During a news conference, Dr. Samet said the panel’s decision to classify cellphones as “possibly carcinogenic” was based largely on epidemiological data showing an increased risk among heavy cellphone users of a rare type of brain tumor called a glioma.

Last year, a 13-country study called Interphone, the largest and longest study of the link between cellphone use and brain tumors, found no overall increased risk, but reported that participants with the highest level of cellphone use had a 40 percent higher risk of glioma. (Even if the elevated risk is confirmed, gliomas are relatively rare and thus individual risk remains minimal.)"

The problem, as I see it, is not confined to cell phone use ... if that was the only thing that we're exposed to then it would probably be ok ... but add cell phone towers, smart meters, wifi routers, cordless phones, etc. and we're living in an electromagnetic soup ... electromagnetic sensitivity is now a recognized health condition ... is this not proof that this sh*t is damaging to our bodies? or are these sick people just tin foil hat conspiracy theorists who choose to stay in their homes to promote their point of view? ...

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publicat...s_June2006.pdf

...so, the take-away is, there's no evidence that this is a significant danger - ...

[Sandy2y]

The information about the dangers of cell phones and all WiFi gadgets has been out there for years, and when I speak about this, the people who are addicted to their cell phones don't want to hear or believe it. It's more insidious than just touching the body. Using WiFi in autos, even on speakerphone, sends the radio frequency radiation in waves bouncing around the car and back into your brains. I don't let anyone use a phone in my car, and I ask that friends who visit me go outside to take or make their calls. Why can't folks just turn their phones off when being with friends? What is this obsession/addiction to immediate attention to an incoming call? I have a landline and an answering machine at home. When I'm out my machine takes messages. And, the earth still turns in its axis.

[podfish]

well let's quote a few of the other paragraphs in this article ...

"... the panel’s decision to classify cellphones as “possibly carcinogenic” was based largely on epidemiological data showing an increased risk among heavy cellphone users of a rare type of brain tumor called a glioma.

Last year, a 13-country study called Interphone, the largest and longest study of the link between cellphone use and brain tumors, found no overall increased risk, but reported that participants with the highest level of cellphone use had a 40 percent higher risk of glioma. (Even if the elevated risk is confirmed, gliomas are relatively rare and thus individual risk remains minimal.)"

reinforcing my point. The risk is minimal. Absolute denial of risk is silly, and isn't necessary. Some people feel the need to do that; I think it's no more rational than excessive worry about risks where the supporting evidence is extremely weak. Personally, I don't like old-style can openers because the metal debris falls into the food. That can't be healthy. But we all get our choice of what cooties to avoid.

The problem, as I see it, is not confined to cell phone use ... if that was the only thing that we're exposed to then it would probably be ok ... but add cell phone towers, smart meters, wifi routers, cordless phones, etc. and we're living in an electromagnetic soup ... electromagnetic sensitivity is now a recognized health condition ... is this not proof that this sh*t is damaging to our bodies? or are these sick people just tin foil hat conspiracy theorists who choose to stay in their homes to promote their point of view? ...

https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publicat...s_June2006.pdf

yeah, maybe they are. That's hard to prove either. The arguments that convince people to worry about cellphones do have to start going where yours just did - drawing in towers, routers, etc. just by common-sense analogy. That doesn't make the theory wrong, but it does make it weakly supported.

[podfish]

and, conveniently enough, this came out today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c35_story.html

[arthunter]

Oh, but's it's all about science because scientists are disagreeing, so which scientists do you agree with? ... do you agree with the scientists who have debunked global warming or those who subscribe to it? ... do you agree with the scientists who testified to the Shasta City Council about verifiable increases of chemicals in our soils or those that discredit those testimonies? ...

and, conveniently enough, this came out today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c35_story.html

[sharingwisdom]

You obviously didn't watch the video to say this lawyer diagnosed himself. Why would a doctor operate on him if he self- diagnosed? He wasn't there to persuade mainstream corporate owned media, which seems to be your criteria for many things in using as verifiable information. He wanted others to know what he's been through. If you were outside with your face towards the sun and got a sunburn, would you call it anecdotal? Would you need mainstream media to verify this for you?

and somehow this self diagnosis didn't persuade mainstream medicine. Anecdotal evidence isn't higher quality just because it's heart-felt and tragic.

[CSummer]

Thinking it would be useful to see historical trends of brain cancer incidence, I was finally able to find that for the US. Here is a graph (scroll down to trends in rates) and here are the numbers. From about 1978, the incidence of new brain cancers went from a low of 5.8 per 100,000 up to 7.1 per 100,000 in 1990. That may not seem like a lot, but it represents an increase of 3900 new cases per year or 22.4%. Since this goes back before the widespread use of cell phones, my guess is that cordless phones of all types may cause brain cancers. There may be a lot more that are undiagnosed, for example, in older people whose tumors haven't caused recognizable symptoms (or who were misdiagnosed) before they die. Not that there's any proof these microwave-band technologies caused the cancers, but if there's a correlation (even a delayed one) between when the technologies were first widely used and the increase in brain cancer diagnoses, then there's reason to suspect the technology as a cause.

You obviously didn't watch the video to say this lawyer diagnosed himself. Why would a doctor operate on him if he self- diagnosed? He wasn't there to persuade mainstream corporate owned media, which seems to be your criteria for many things in using as verifiable information. He wanted others to know what he's been through. If you were outside with your face towards the sun and got a sunburn, would you call it anecdotal? Would you need mainstream media to verify this for you?

[podfish]

Thinking it would be useful to see historical trends of brain cancer incidence, I was finally able to find that for the US. Here is a graph... From about 1978, the incidence of new brain cancers went from a low of 5.8 per 100,000 up to 7.1 per 100,000 in 1990. That may not seem like a lot, but it represents an increase of 3900 new cases per year or 22.4%. Since this goes back before the widespread use of cell phones, my guess is that cordless phones of all types may cause brain cancers.

???? why on earth would that guess seem reasonable?? You know what else happened around then? The AppleII came out!! and since Apple would make IPhones decades later, maybe AppleII also caused brain cancer!
That's also around the time CFCs were banned to protect the ozone layer. But maybe CFCs protected us against brain cancer! or the ozone layer itself causes brain cancer! and that's when VW Beetles stopped production. Maybe THEY protected us against brain cancer.

[podfish]

If you were outside with your face towards the sun and got a sunburn, would you call it anecdotal? Would you need mainstream media to verify this for you?

I'm outside with the sun on my face without getting sunburns all the time. I often get sunburns when I'm at the beach, though. By your implied rules of correlation, I'd think you should blame sunburns on the sand.

There's a reason that our society has more knowledge than the cavemen did. It's not because they were less mentally capable than we are, and I bet many of them thought more deeply about their surroundings than we do. But people learned to talk and even more, to write, and so knowledge was accumulated and tested by millions of people over time. Rejecting that because of personal gut feelings seem so much more real is by definition an ignorant position - it's ignoring and devaluing the accumulated experiences of many people who have very likely spent far more time in deeply understanding a subject than any of us can do on our own.

[wisewomn]

I agree with your statement about "accumulated knowledge," Podfish. (You are consistently sensible, IMO.) In that vein, therefore, you and anyone else interested in this subject would do well to check out "Disconnect" by Dr. Devra Davis:
https://www.amazon.com/Disconnect-Tr...s=books&sr=1-1

Of course there will be a LOT of resistance to the idea that cell phones and their ilk are harmful. Their frequent usage affects the same parts of the brain as other addictive substances, like cocaine, and people who are addicted to these devices (just look around--they're everywhere) will deny the validity of that fact for as long as they can. It took more than 50 years to convince people that cigarette smoking is unhealthy/causes cancer.

At the very least, people should turn OFF their cell phones when they aren't actually using them.

[CSummer]

On earth - as may be true of other planets - cell phones are transmitters of non-ionizing radiation in the near-microwave frequency range. Apple II was not such a transmitter and you didn't use it by holding it next to your body. So if there are health effects from direct exposure to EMF in the operating frequencies of cell phones, it would certainly make sense to take some care about how you use them. Since the power of EMF decreases by the square of the distance from the source to a given object, you probably don't have to keep a cell phone that far from your body to reduce these effects. There is no similarity that I can conceive of between Apple II computers and iPhones, other than that they're both electronic digital devices made by Apple. Mobile phones are designed to be transmitters, computers without WiFi are not.

Most sources of info about the health effects of cell phone EMF I find online are suspect because of their industry connection. One source - Consumer Reports - I would find more trustworthy. A quote:

“I think the overall evidence that wireless radiation might cause adverse health effects is now strong enough that it’s almost unjustifiable for government agencies and scientists not to be alerting the public to the potential hazards,” says David O. Carpenter, M.D., director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany in New York and one of the authors of the recent letter to the U.N. and WHO.
______________________

To me, random speculation about other possible causes of the change in brain cancer incidence doesn't add anything useful to this discussion.

???? why on earth would that guess seem reasonable?? You know what else happened around then? The AppleII came out!! and since Apple would make IPhones decades later, maybe AppleII also caused brain cancer!...

[podfish]

On earth - as may be true of other planets - cell phones are transmitters of non-ionizing radiation in the near-microwave frequency range. Apple II was not such a transmitter and you didn't use it by holding it next to your body.

no, but there were Apple IIs in 1978 when your study indicated the incidence of cancer went up. Also VWs. The first cell-phone network was in 1983. That disqualifies phones as a factor in your "historical trends in brain cancer incidence" argument. I was helpfully offering some other factors that did indeed exist during the time frame you offered.

[CSummer]

You're right, the timing doesn't seem right for cell or cordless phones. Could be more linked to the introduction of glyphosate (Roundup), which was in '74. Might account for the significant step up in incidence in '85, since it can take 5-10 years for the presence of cancer to become evident. I recently read that 93% of the population has this chemical in their bodies.

no, but there were Apple IIs in 1978 when your study indicated the incidence of cancer went up. Also VWs. The first cell-phone network was in 1983. That disqualifies phones as a factor in your "historical trends in brain cancer incidence" argument. I was helpfully offering some other factors that did indeed exist during the time frame you offered.

[Karl Frederick]

That's an interesting essay, with some good points about how we decide what to believe. It's a pity the author, Joel Achenbach, apparently didn't make room for current science to influence his need for scapegoats (i.e. - those who have called fluoridation and vaccine efficacy into question for clear, data-based reasons) to reinforce the thesis of his essay. Instead of explaining why he thinks his scapegoats are mistaken, he relies on an intellectual sham, hiding behind once-and-still-popular consensus. He might as well have said it outright: "Everybody knows . . ."

and, conveniently enough, this came out today:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c35_story.html