https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now
Can You Hear Me Now? The Truth about Cell Phones and Cancer (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now&print=true)
Physics shows that cell phones cannot cause cancer
By Michael Shermer (https://www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=597) Monday, October 4, 2010
Baseball legend Yogi Berra is said to have fretted, “I don’t want to make the wrong mistake.” As opposed to the right mistake? A mistake that is both wrong and right is the alleged connection between cell phone use and brain cancers. Reports of a link between the two have periodically surfaced ever since cell phones became common appendages to people’s heads in the 1990s. As recently as this past May 17, Time magazine reported that despite numerous studies finding no connection between cell phones and cancer, “a growing band of scientists are skeptical, suggesting that the evidence that does exist is enough to raise a warning for consumers—before mass harm is done.”
Their suggestion follows the precautionary principle, which holds that if something has any potential for great harm to a large number of people, then even in the absence of evidence of harm, the burden of proof is on the unworried to demonstrate that the danger is not real. The precautionary principle is a weak argument for two reasons: (1) it is difficult to prove a negative—that there is no effect; (2) it raises unnecessary public alarm and personal anxiety. Cell phones and cancer is a case study in the precautionary principle misapplied, because not only is there no epidemiological evidence of a causal connection, but physics shows that it is virtually impossible for cell phones to cause cancer.
The latest negative findings mentioned by Time come out of a $24-million research project published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (“Brain Tumour Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use”). It encompassed more than 12,000 long-term regular cell phone users from 13 countries, about half of whom were brain cancer patients, which let researchers compare the two groups. The authors concluded: “Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma [the two most common types of brain tumors] was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.”
This application of the precautionary principle is the wrong mistake to make. Cell phones cannot cause cancer, because they do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells. Some forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as x-rays, gamma rays and ultraviolet (UV) radiation, are energetic enough to break the bonds in key molecules such as DNA and thereby generate mutations that lead to cancer. Electromagnetic radiation in the form of infrared light, microwaves, television and radio signals, and AC power is too weak to break those bonds, so we don’t worry about radios, televisions, microwave ovens and power outlets causing cancer.
Where do cell phones fall on this spectrum? According to physicist Bernard Leikind in a technical article in Skeptic magazine (Vol. 15, No. 4), known carcinogens such as x-rays, gamma rays and UV rays have energies greater than 480 kilojoules per mole (kJ/mole), which is enough to break chemical bonds. Green-light photons hold 240 kJ/mole of energy, which is enough to bend (but not break) the rhodopsin molecules in our retinas that trigger our photosensitive rod cells to fire. A cell phone generates radiation of less than 0.001 kJ/mole. That is 480,000 times weaker than UV rays and 240,000 times weaker than green light!
Even making the cell phone radiation more intense just means that there are more photons of that energy, not stronger photons. Cell phone photons cannot add up to become UV photons or have their effect any more than microwave or radio-wave photons can. In fact, if the bonds holding the key mole*cules of life together could be broken at the energy levels of cell phones, there would be no life at all because the various natural sources of energy from the environment would prevent such bonds from ever forming in the first place.
Thus, although in principle it is difficult to prove a negative, in this case, one can say it is impossible for cell phones to hurt the brain—with the exception, of course, of hitting someone on the head with one. QED.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now
Can You Hear Me Now? The Truth about Cell Phones and Cancer (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now&print=true)
Physics shows that cell phones cannot cause cancer
By Michael Shermer (https://www.scientificamerican.com/author.cfm?id=597) Monday, October 4, 2010
Shermer's article strikes me as being intentionally deceptive. It relies on selective interpretation of partial data from the Interphone study -- data which have already been shown to have striking internal inconsistencies leading to opposite conclusions (i.e. - cell phone use can lead to increased occurence of cancers, and also cell phone use can seem to protect against cancers).
Here's a link to a Science News article:
https://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/59296/title/Interphone_study_finds_hints_of_brain_cancer_risk_in_heavy_cell-phone_users
Then there is the question of Shermer's credibility, from
https://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Mediaskeptics/index.html
Michael Shermer
Is publisher of the Skeptic magazine, the Director of the Skeptic Society, the host of the Skeptics’ Lecture Series at the California Institute of Technology and the author of a regular column in Scientific American called “Skeptic”. He frequently appears in the US media as an advocate of the skeptical point of view. Although he is a historian rather than a scientist, he sees himself as an arbiter of scientific credibility and standard bearer of rational thought. “In a free society, skeptics are the watchdogs against irrationalism. Debunking is not simply a divestment of bunk; its utility is in offering a better alternative, along with a lesson in how thinking goes wrong” (Scientific American, June 2001, p. 23).
According to Wikipedia ( Wikipedia.org (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shermer) ) he was once a fundamentalist Christian. Much of his writing concerns the personal experiences that shaped his worldview. He once tried to enhance his athletic abilities with various New Age techniques, such as iridology, rolfing, and mega-vitamins. He even kept a pyramid in his living room to increase energy. His skepticism developed in reaction to his earlier credulity. He now reveals a similarly credulous attitude toward mainstream science itself. If it's Big Science, he's for it, including human cloning. In his book The Borderlands of Science he outlines a series of criteria for distinguishing between real science and “baloney”. He particularly warns his readers against people who have ideologies to pursue, whose pattern of thinking “consistently ignores or distorts data not for creative purposes but for ideological agendas". Unfortunately he himself has an ideology to pursue and makes untruthful and pseudoscientific claims.
For example, in his "Skeptic" column in Scientific American in March, 2003, he cited a research study published in the Lancet, a leading medical journal, by Pim van Lommel and colleagues. He asserted this study "delivered a blow" to the idea that the mind and the brain could separate. Yet the researchers argued the exact opposite, and showed that conscious experience outside the body took place during a period of clinical death when the brain was flatlined. As Jay Ingram, of the Canadian Discovery Channel, commented: "His use of this study to bolster his point is bogus… He could have said, 'The authors think there's a mystery, but I choose to interpret their findings differently'. But he didn't. I find that very disappointing" (Toronto Star, March 16, 2003).
Pim van Lommel wrote to the editor of Scientific American setting out the evidence that Shermer misrepresented.
In August 2004, Dr Petrus Pennanen wrote to point out 'an extremely unscientific statement' in an article by Shermer on telepathy
In November 2004, Professor John Poynton, President of the Society for Psychical Research, wrote to protest that Shermer's activities are a distortion of the concept of skepticism.
Full text of these statements... Statements by Shermer's critics (https://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Mediaskeptics/Shermer_critics.html)
In relation to Rupert Sheldrake's book The Sense of Being Stared At, he claimed in USA Today that "the events Sheldrake describes don't require a theory and are perfectly explicable by normal means"(Feb 26, 2003). When asked to substantiate this claim, he was unable to do so and admitted he had not seen the book.
In his August 2004 Skeptic column in Scientific American, Shermer launched an extraordinary attack on the widely respected physicist Freeman Dyson, of Princeton. He took exception to the fact that Freeman Dyson publicly concluded that paranormal phenomena might really exist, on the basis of “a great mass of evidence“ (New York Review of Books, March 25, 2004).
Dyson’s error, according to Shermer, was to be interested in people’s actual experiences:
“Even genius of this magnitude cannot override the cognitive biases that favour anecdotal thinking. The only way to find out if anecdotes resemble real phenomena is controlled tests. Either people can read other people’s minds (or ESP cards), or they can’t. Science has unequivocally demonstrated that they can’t - QED.“
This sounds like a crushing rebuttal of Dyson’s view, with the full weight of the authority of science. But it is untrue. There have been many scientific investigations of telepathy, and there is much evidence in its favour.
Shermer is a close associate of the conjurer James Randi. In January 2005 in Las Vegas, at the Stardust Hotel, they gave a workshop together on how to get the skeptical message across, teaching would-be media skeptics the “tricks of the trade,” so that they could be the one the media will call “when the next UFO or psychic healer appears on the scene.”
For details, see Randi’s web site, www.randi.org (https://www.randi.org%3e/)
For the Coast to Coast debate, January 23, 2006 'Shermer in the Skeptics' Cage'
Review of the Debate (https://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Debates/Shermer_skepticscage.html)
Shermer's conversation with Ted Dace The End of Reductionism (https://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/Examskeptics/Dace_Shermer.html)
Shermer’s website: Skeptic.com (https://www.skeptic.com/)
podfish
10-05-2010, 08:33 AM
Just to be contrarian, I'll take issue with this. Actually, the first point made is actually the compelling one:
The latest negative findings mentioned by Time come out of a $24-million research project published in the International Journal of Epidemiology (“Brain Tumour Risk in Relation to Mobile Telephone Use”). It encompassed more than 12,000 long-term regular cell phone users from 13 countries, about half of whom were brain cancer patients, which let researchers compare the two groups. The authors concluded: “Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma [the two most common types of brain tumors] was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation.”
Everyone should be familiar with the bromide "correlation isn't causation". However, it's still useful as a refutation of a given premise. If there isn't even correlation, we have no reason to even suspect causation. So to my mind, this is pretty compelling evidence that cell phones don't impact the brain. However, the next point, while sounding more scientific (because of its invocation of a mechanism), is actually irrelevant to the question at hand:
Cell phones cannot cause cancer, because they do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells. What grounds does he have to equate "breaking molecular bonds" with causing cancer?? Maybe a slight magnetic field alters the distribution of ions in the cell, and THAT causes cancer. Maybe there's a new force (dark energy!!) that's coming out of cell phones and we have no clue! In fact, dark energy was unknown before the invention of cell phones, but it's now thought to make up 75% of the universe. Is this the cause? Maybe all that texting is worse for the universe than we ever thought.
jeromka
10-05-2010, 01:22 PM
REALLY? Physics shows that cell phones cannot cause cancer; hummmm...
So, cell phones cannot cause cancer. I am aware that you are citing certain facts about DNA; energy levels required to BREAK specific KNOWN human biological BONDS at the chemical and molecular level, etc, but here is the REAL lowdown on this subject, as AS THERE IS MORE TO THIS STORY... (!).
For decades, homeowners who lived under Power Lines, battled with ALL regulatory agencies, State Governments, EPA, Feds, etc, for THIS reason: Their KIDS were getting cancer of all types. Leukemia in particular, plus others including Brain cancers. After decades and decades PROVING beyond a shadow of a doubt, that indeed, living close to "Electromagnetic Radiation" did indeed cause cancer: It is now LAW at both Federal, State and local levels, that homes must be a specified distance from Power Lines. Governments even had to buy-up the homes which were under the power lines...
Fact it this, in the ensuing years since then, it has now come to light, that even being exposed to electromagnetic radiation at lower levels than previously thought, does cause cancer depending on individual, proximity, power level, etc, even for those whose beds are circled by household A/C wiring in the walls, at close proximity, for example.
It is established, that certain people are EXTREMELY susceptible to the effects of Electromagnetic Radiation, to the point that they can have effects from mild to wild, which affects them from their MOOD, to their mental state of mind to appetite as well. There are those people who cannot even live close to Cell Phone towers, as they simply are too affected. There are double-blind studies, which go on to prove that these individuals are affected: An example would be if they had no idea if they were even close to a cell tower or not, being moved around, with solid indisputable results which prove that they are being affected by proximity to those same cell phone towers, FOR INSTANCE.
You are probably aware of people who are "Chemically Sensitive", and cannot live in a house with strong "V.O.C's" (vollital organic compounds, such as those emitted by synthetic carpets or various paints or household/construction "caulking compounds" used in bathrooms, window sealants, weather sealing, etc)? Well, this subject is NOT controversial, with so many studies done to prove that those people ARE indeed affected from "mildly" to "extremely" from various chemical exposure.
To state that your "organic molecular bonds" cannot be broken by "X" amount of radiation, is just not the point... There are so many other factors which go on inside the human body which we are only just starting to understand, that it is rather narrow viewed to just focus on one aspect of what one's body and mind then draw conclusions of what MAY or may not be affected by "this or that".
Take the astronauts for example: They have quite pronounced MOOD effects in their ventures into space. Is it just gravity or the lack thereof, or some combination of human biological mechanisms which are taking place?
In closing, I will comment that it appears that you are not apparently aware of the magnetic effects which are now being discovered, at the atomic level, which affect objects across distances from inches to hundreds of miles or further. There are now, apparently some interlinking subatomic particles or "forces" which interlink in ways in which we have NO understanding yet, but the studies are clear that these effects are taking place. Perhaps someday, the controversial "ESP" effect will be linked together by these new avenues of science we are just now becoming aware of?
So, is the precaution a good idea for cell phones? Well, I do not wish to be a "BETA" subject in this controversy, so I use my speakerphone on my cell whenever possible. Oh, and when I am microwaving food, if I put my head up close to the meshed window to see how the food in there is cooking (or overflowing!) I "FEEL" something, and then when I move away the "something" goes away.
So, you may also deny that there is a good medical explanation for all this, but do you have a complete understanding of all that is going on in this universe? I suggest that there are factors of which we do not even comprehend yet to be discovered, so on that note, I will let each of you take your own position... Hopefully the one which will keep you more or less safer than the other way around!
OH! I suppose it is "OK" that the labels on our food often are long listings which can contain substances which during the history of mankind, contain substances which man just has NOT ingested into his body over the course of history. So, we are all BETA testers for the effects of how this chemical soup of substances is going to affect our various body and mind NATURAL sequence of biological sequences and interactions...??? So, the increase in cancers perhaps may have some link to all the chemical exposures which just are NOT natural for the human organism? Who would have thought, that simple smoking would cause cancer, eh? After all, humans have been exposed to fires for cooking and subsequent smoke, from the beginning of human time, true? Perhaps, the chemicals which tobacco companies put in the mix for both FLAVOR and to, yes, RAISE the additive effects, perhaps this mixed-up the human immune system and has caused a dysfunction in its workings? It goes on and on...
By the way, I was FCC 1st Class licensed at the age of 19... I have been in the field of science and especially electronics, my whole life, and can tell you that EXPOSURE to this and that, from A to Z, if done in excess and in a manner in which A persons body just cannot cope, then a disease function results.
We are all victims: Did you know that ~ lately ~, it has been found that the plastic lining every can of soda, beans, fruit, beer, contains the substance BPA, which is a known carcinogen. This plastic, also used to make Epoxy Resin as "Part A", is so pervasive in this society, that manufacturers just do not know WHAT TO DO, as a substitute! HELP, they cry out, while we continue to get sick and die.
How do I know that BPA is bad news? I owned a company which supplied BPA or "Bisphenol A" to manufacturers for quite awhile, and you know what? I saw many of the workers get sensitized, then sick and then get cancer and DIE, repeatedly, from exposure to this chemical... Yet, your own government agency tasked with protecting YOU, is not up to the HUGE task of doing so.
What to do? Take it into your own hands, and try to use less chemicals; expose yourself to them as little as possible, and READ, READ, READ! Keep up to date on the latest studies, and know what you will NOT hear on the news. Watch the "Science Channel" as there you will find out about stuff which is at the forefront of our knowledge which is often the precursor to what will eventually lead up to some event in our society which then becomes very important. Watch the "Health Channel". Subscribe to forward leaning health periodicals. Again, READ, but read the NEW info, as the old "AMA" approved this and that will NOT get you educated for what is to COME...
In closing, I will comment that it appears that you are not apparently aware of the magnetic effects which are now being discovered, at the atomic level, which affect objects across distances from inches to hundreds of miles or further. Think about that for a second: The magnetic fields at the atomic and sub-atomic level, have been found to link to one another, even when there is a great distance between them? WOW, so what do we KNOW in reality? Just a tiny bit it appears. The "best guess" so far on this newly discovered effect between atoms and their TINY magnetic interactions, is that there are CONNECTIONS from one to another through so as yet to be discovered mechanism. The effect is instantaneous ie faster than the speed of light, and not distance related! Put that on your list of topics to think about, eh? Perhaps it would have even given Einstein a headache, I would imagine. There are now, apparently some interlinking subatomic particles or "forces" which interlink in ways in which we have NO understanding yet, but the studies are clear that these effects are taking place. Perhaps someday, the controversial "ESP" effect will be linked together by these new avenues of science we are just now becoming aware of? WHO KNOWS! But to claim that the relatively LARGE electromagnetic field from cell phones and towers has NO effect on us, may be to put it mildly, just abit premature, what with us humans still not knowing it all, eh?!
Good luck all! We all need help on this one, I believe.