Pittsburgh cancer center warns of cell phone risks

This stuff again? Not talking on a bus because you might expose others to your electromagnetic radiation? Riiight, because only the area around a cell phone has that radiation flying through the air. Go anywhere in a city and you are exposed to greater levels of electromagnetic radiation.

Even if any truth comes from these studies, there is no way people are going to collectively go "Oh, guess we will give up wireless communication all-together." No people will either live with cancer or put pressure on finding more treatments for the cancers it produces. All these articles are are fear-mongering, nothing more.

Oh Gawd...here we go again....

This is no joke. You are putting a microwave source capable of transmitting for miles right next to your head. You dont get that intensity anywhere you go.You retards should have listened the first time.

Break out the tin foil hats.

There is a reason why this is the only institution to put out this statement, because there is not clear link.

This was very irresponsible of Dr. Herberman as well. There are entire fields of people (medical physicist and health physicists) who study this exact area. While many of these EXPERTS do believe in the association to cancer, not to include them in your panel of "international experts" is just shameful. What do MDs know about EM radiation?

Original story with links to Dr. Herberman's letter
http://www.post-g...-114.stm

"He says it takes too long to get answers from science and he believes people should take action now - especially when it comes to children."

Science is too slow! we need to take action based on fear! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?

Actually science has been looking at this "claim" for years. It is Dr. Ronald B. Herberman who is too slow.

geeeesh. Microwaves are NON-IONIZING radiation! They can transfer heat (and cook you) if you are exposed to enough of them, but then, so can darned near anything:P. Like, say, ovens. Or light bulbs. Or baseballs. But microwaves can't produce DNA damage in the same way that ionizing radiation can - things like UVb, X-rays, or high energy particle radiation.

Once again we have a medical doctor giving his airhead opinion on things that he doesn't understand, and can't be bothered to research. MDs aren't chosen for their brains; the selection pressure in that profession is for people who can handle enormous levels of stress, and for people with steady hands. That's it. Intellect not required, as this guy quite nicely evidences.

More American faith based garbage. Why don't they fire that clown. I wonder if magic jesus or some other space based invisible friend told him to do it in a prayer session.
In Europe we've had mobile phones since the 1980's so that's well over the ten years this frightened quack is talking about. How do you get that job anyway save up some coupons?

You people seem to know everything. Number one, even non-ionizing radiation is capable of harm. Number two, this article has absolutely NOTHING to do "faith-based" reasoning. I would probably take faith-based reasoning over the total lack of reasoning in your attempted connection to religion.

All this guy is saying that we don't know everything yet (except you guys, you obviously know it all). There have not been enough credible longterm studies to eliminate all reasonable doubt. Another example that comes to mind is the new research claiming harmful effects of plastic bottles. Look how long everyone used plastic bottles assuming they were safe.

"Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry later," Herberman said.

1) Tekito, that *points up to quote* is faith based reason. 'Don't wait for the science, ban it now!!111one!11". The man is an idiot. If there were any significant indications of harm from cell phones, then people could say things like this. Because he is just yanking opinions out of the air, it is faith-based garbage — just like psuedo-scientists and religious people — nothing more.

2) "Radiation" means "thing that can impart energy", or, more simply, "moving object". When you walk across a room, you are radiation. When you thrown a baseball, it is radiation. When a bomb goes off, the debris 'radiates' outward, and it is radiation. OF COURSE any object or wave that can transfer energy can cause harm.

But while a fast moving baseball can cause harm, it can't cause DNA damage; it doesn't have a high enough energy transfer level on small scales to have an effect on DNA. If you make the baseball really small (like say, the size of a neutron), and speed it up to a decent rate of speed, then it will impart enough energy over a small enough area to damage DNA. But a normal sized baseball just can't do it. It is too big. Along the same vein, while a microwave can cause heat damage, it can't cause DNA damage. No DNA damage means no cancer.

Tekito
That's not true. Even if it's not explicitly stated he (mainly due to his position) essentially is saying cell phones cause cancer and do these things to limit your risk.

And by the way since he is an immunologist and not a physicist or epidemiologist this is his opinion and somewhat "faith based"

1) If he was truly rejecting the scientific method, then he would say cell phones do cause cancer. All he is saying is that he not 100% sure one way or the other. So far the evidence has been negative but I wouldn't be completely amazed if future studies turned up risks. He is NOT proclaiming that cell phones are harmful.

2) UVA is non-ionizing radiation, and it can be carcinogenic. Something doesn't have to be ionizing to be a contributing factor for cancer.

Outlaw the use and possession of cell phones. Then only terrorists would have them.

UVA is non-ionizing radiation, and it can be carcinogenic. Something doesn't have to be ionizing to be a contributing factor for cancer.

UV light IS ionizing which is WHY it causes cancer. http://en.wikiped...adiation

In order for a particle to be ionizing, it must both have a high enough energy and interact with the atoms of a target. Photons interact strongly with charged particles, so photons of sufficiently high energy also are ionizing. The energy at which this begins to happen with photons (light) is in the ultraviolet region of the electromagnetic spectrum; sunburn is one of the effects of ionization.

Maybe some research or basic reading before you start making claims. k, thanks.

There's an Abian born every minute."

Good Lord.

Note wikipedia says "the energy at which this begins to happen is ***IN**** the ultraviolet region..." In otherwords, some ultraviolet frequencies, such as the UVA region, are below this energy, and are non-ionizing. Hope this wasn't too complicated.

Ah, my mistake then. However, UVA does not cause damage directly to the DNA and only does so because of a chemical reaction. Microwave radiation does not have this effect.

I know microwave radiation does not have this effect. That was only provided as a counter-example to the assertion that non-ionizing implies noncarcinogenic (which some of the above comments have been taking for granted). Unfortunately I do not know all the intricacies of microwave radiation to debate much further, but I don't think a universal, firm conclusion about long-term cellphone use has yet been reached.

Hate to brake it to ya'll but even electricity running from a power line can play a roll in causing cancer. Electromagnets are basicaly magnets and I dont see many people out in a rush to put a magnet next to there head very often. With good reason cause everything is effected in some way shape or form by magnetic fields even if it is really really small amount of effect its still there. So honestly im not gona feel to upset over people ending up having cancer at all that choose to live in a place where there is alot of "magnets" around especialy when they put one to there head ei cellphone/mp3player ect...

That's because you don't know about any of the pre-existing research or really very much at all. Sleep causes cancer by your unreasoning.

I know microwave radiation does not have this effect. That was only provided as a counter-example to the assertion that non-ionizing implies noncarcinogenic (which some of the above comments have been taking for granted).

Non-ionizing *does* imply noncarcinogenic. It's absorbed, and produces heat. Being non-ionizing, the heat is the only way it causes chemical changes. Sufficient RF power can denature proteins and cause burns, but a cell phone does not emit at nearly high enough power levels to do so...the heat from your hand will dwarf the heating from the cell phone signal. Sitting next to an incandescent bulb or stepping outside on a sunny day will result in far more...and much of it will be from far more energetic infrared and visible light photons. Some of it will even be blue and UV photons, with sufficient energy to ionize things and potentially cause the kind of damage to cellular machinery that results in cancer...fortunately, at wavelengths that short, tissue penetration is quite shallow.

Magpies...you *are* aware the Earth itself has a magnetic field, aren't you? And that light itself is electromagnetic radiation...

For crissakes don't go into an MRI to find out if you have cancer then...

Hate to brake it to ya'll but even electricity running from a power line can play a roll in causing cancer

This is exactly the same issue EM (non-ionizing radiation) causing cancer. The literature is just as divided on power lines. Many of thse early studies on power lines did not consider the chemicals used in transformers and to treat wooden poles as the source of cancer.

There is no detected link so far.
There could be a link.

To explain how heavy cell phone use can increase cancer risk i'll first explain how cancer works:

Cancer happens when one cell of which we have 100 trillion overcomes safety mechanisms put in place by evolution and starts to divide in an uncontrolled manner.

Those safety mechanisms have various forms the most important one involves control and repair of DNA damage. DNA is the program which cells execute, and that program needs to be changed for cells to become cancerous.

DNA damage happens all the time, reactions which provide cells with energy sometimes produce highly reactive byproducts like reactive forms of oxygen which can damage DNA, natural ionizing radiation damages DNA, various toxic substances present in environment damage DNA.

Most of that damage is successfully repaired by specialized nucleoprotein (proteins RNA) complexes within the cell, in rare cases when the damage is too severe to be repaired the cell will undergo apoptosis (a programmed cell death)in order to protect the organism.

In extremely rare cases both DNA repair and apoptosis pathways might be damaged and the cell will remain alive unable to repair its DNA which will accumulate further mutations in time.

At this point the cell can be killed by immune system cells patrolling our bodies, this relies mostly on checking the cells surface and its answer to specific interrogations, if proper pathways are still intact the cell will pass inspection.

If that happens and the cell keeps accumulating mutations at some point one of the growth and division control mechanisms might get mutated and rendered inoperable allowing the cell to start dividing in an uncontrolled manner.
Since in most cases damaged DNA can't be properly partitioned into daughter cells those cells will accumulate further damages and mutations as they divide. At this point the original single mutated cell gave birth to a colony of mutated cells forming a tumor.

Dividing and mutating tumor cells are under natural selection, mutations which allow the tumor to grow faster, induce blood vessels to grow into it and supply nutrients and those which lower tumor susceptibility to organism defenses will be selected for.

Finally the fate of organism is sealed when tumor cells gain the ability to leave the original tumor and migrate with the bloodstream and seed daughter tumors in other parts of the body.

Tumor is all about bad luck as all those events have very low probability and they all have to coincide in a single cell for the tumor to result the chance a single cell will turn into a tumor is extremely small however since we have 100 trillion cells the chance that one of them turns into a tumor is significant. This randomness explains why someone can smoke 100 cigarettes a day and never get a lung cancer, while someone else who never smoked can get the disease.

This got a bit more elaborate then I intended at first but maybe it will help someone understand this disease better, anyway now how cell phones can lead to cancer:

All described above safety measures implemented in the cell involve proteins - proteins perform most of the work of cells. Proteins are heat sensitive, they only take on a useful shape in a certain range of temperatures. For most human proteins this range is 10s of degrees Celsius above and below 37C. However humans have many various mutations in their genes, if those mutations don't impair gene function under normal circumstances they are passed on. Some such mutations can make proteins encoded by mutated genes more heat sensitive. Some human populations might have gene variants encoding very heat sensitive versions of important proteins.
Heavy use of cell phone leads to heavy exposure of part of the brain to microwave radiation which slightly heats brain tissue.
It is possible that such heating would be enough to temporarily inactivate some important cellular machinery in people who have sensitizing mutations. This could in turn lead to higher brain cancer risk. The chances of it happening are VERY small but not zero.
Of other heat sources like a fever for example would also increase risk for such people.

My point is that it IS possible for non-ionizing radiation to increase cancer risk, I'm not saying that the effect is significant, It can't be huge cause it would have been located by now, although it could only manifest in selected populations with predisposing mutations which haven't been tested yet.
I myself don't use any precautions however everyone should have the right to decide for themselves and to do that they need to be properly informed about the issue so I think its good thing to rise this concern from time to time until we have enough research to finally quantify the effect.

Up to now, ALL studies (hundreds!) had shown no additional cancer risk caused by cell phones. But anxiety was already there.

In the last year, ONE study in Israel has seen a small risk increase for one specific type of cancer. The location of the cancer, the risk increasing steadily with the dose, speak in favour of a link.

To my best knowledge (I'm quite good for radiowaves but zero for medicine) no other study has since been published to confirm that single one.

Relying on one study and referring to unpublished results as "a growing body of literature" is simply crap.

With a score of 1000 studies negative to 1 positive, my personal bet would be to wait for a second and third study. I know few items that would go through so many studies without detecting a risk.

To me, it looks a bit like cryptanalysis: if you try 1000 possible correlations, you will find one that surpasses 3 sigma and thus looks convincing, just because with so many attempts, you'd need to set the credibility barrier at 6 sigma.

Recommending a wireless headset - which contains itself a radiotransmitter - is just plain nonsense. Or yes, it makes one sense: that the market for cell phones is saturated and some people want us to buy headsets and pay VAT on them.

Yes, a French minister opened her mouth on this subject. Since when are politicians considered as sources of reliable knowledge? The danger of asbestos was documented in any popular science magazine for 20 years before politicians made a move.

About the possible mechanisms of a hypothetical link:

Considering that our human knowledge in biology and medicine is nearly zero, I don't consider it important to explain the mechanism of a possible link in order to check if that link is credible or not.

Example: when Thalidomide was marketed, universal belief was that enantiomeres (right and left molecules) acted identically in the body. Bad effects were found through statistical analysis; an action mechanism wouldn't have found a link then - within the best knowledge. Then, drug companies became aware that their products needed to be purified in right or left variety.

It is perfectly possible to find presently unknown action mechanisms of RF waves on the body in the future. Or better: I'm sure we will find some new mechanisms, related or not to the Israeli study. So the lack of explanation shouldn't be an argument in medicine.

Thermal effects: not probable.

I read the literature in 1989 when creating the RFID technology and discussed with the author of the legal standard for field strength limits.

His reasoning was: no other effect than thermal was known, so he took a piece of meat and a thermometer able of detecting 0.1C. He observed the power density that provoked this 0.1C increase and divided it by 10 as a safety margin to define a legal limit.

Meanwhile, politicians have regularly reduced this limit without any new scientific data input.

So you may consider that authorized items produce less than 0.01C increase in the body, and this is certainly less than natural variations.

Just in case some people have doubts: I don't want to have a cell phone for completely different reasons, and I earn no money with cell phones nor RFID - I got my salary then from my employer who missed this market meanwhile.

Comments on Physorg are retarded. This "feature" should be removed as it's just turning this once great site into a mud slinging pulpit.

Thermal effects: not probable.
I read the literature in 1989 when creating the RFID technology and discussed with the author of the legal standard for field strength limits.

His reasoning was: no other effect than thermal was known, so he took a piece of meat and a thermometer able of detecting 0.1C. He observed the power density that provoked this 0.1C increase and divided it by 10 as a safety margin to define a legal limit.

Sticking thermometer into a block of meat is not science and I hope limits are not based on such "experiments". First meat is dead, second you need to test large number of samples of various tissues in various ambient temperatures and finally all other experimental conditions need to be properly controlled and reported.

And as for temperature increase of cell phones, I checked google and found some article http://ieeexplore...r=942573
which puts a possible increase of temperature of brain tissue from cell phone use at 0.1-0.2C while at the same time stating that current safety guidelines allow up to 0.5C which is quite significant.

And yes, there might be some other not yet discovered effects, for example microwave radiation induces dipole molecules to rotate as they try to align with changing induced electrical field.
One of such dipole molecules is water which forms part of a structure of most organic molecules by surrounding them with a hydration shell, it is possible that constant perturbation of water molecules somewhat diminishes their hydration properties and leads to subtle changes in protein structure.
There are also plenty of other dipoles in human cells and it is quite possible that cellular EM affects them in some undesired way.

All in all the issue certainly isn't settled yet (and probably won't be for a long time).

I'm no doctor or scientist but I think it will take 20-30 yrs before there is conclusive evidence pointing either way. Cell phones are still a young technology.