Scientists warn US Congress of cancer risk for cell phone use
September 26th, 2008The potential link between mobile telephones and brain cancer could be similar to the link between lung cancer and smoking -- something tobacco companies took 50 years to recognize, US scientists warned Thursday.
Content from AFP expires 1 month after original publication date. For more information about AFP, please visit www.afp.com .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
Study links smoking with most male cancer deaths
Jan 21, 2009 |
4 / 5 (8) |
2
Researches link tobacco industry's marketing to youth smoking
Aug 21, 2008 |
3.7 / 5 (3) |
0
Active smoking and second-hand smoke linked to breast cancer
Apr 23, 2009 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
Tobacco companies obstructed science, history professor says
Feb 19, 2007 |
4.5 / 5 (12) |
0
Patients unaware of link between smoking and bladder cancer
Jul 08, 2008 |
5 / 5 (3) |
0
4.3/5 after 89 votes
Display comments: newest first
This starts to looks serious.
It's NON IONIZING radiation, my God might as well throw away everything that has an EM field around it and go back to throwing spears.
This is ALL a freaking red herring by lawyers and government officials looking for a way to loot the profits of the mobile / telecommunications industries!
It is entirely possible that you are right. It is also entirely possible that you are wrong. Unfortunately, we've got "conclusive" studies on both sides. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not competent to evaluate the specifics of medical studies beyond the statistical parts. The study claiming an increase in brain tumors on the cell-phone-side of adolescents *at minimum* begs for a closer look, and I would think the people on "your" side of the argument should at least attempt to explain the findings.
Myself, I hate the damthings anyway.
It may be that someone has found some correlation between cell phone users and cancer but it simply CAN'T be due to the radiation involved. It's like doing a study that finds that people who drive cars have more whiplash than other people and saying it's because of the EM radiation given off by their speakers, not the fact that occasionally you get hit from behind by someone in an accident....
Some of the above comments are blatently wrong. To say that EM radiation is healthy proves how little scientific knowledge people know.
Gamma rays are also EM radiation just like cell phone signals. They are identical to cell phone radiation except for frequency.
Microwave cookers (another EM radiation) were invented after radio antenna maintenance workers getting cooked kidneys and organs whilst working on live transmitters.
UV EM radiation is used by genetics researchers to induce mutations in organisms.
Smoking was/is also tied to work. It was and still is in some places part of the office environment whether you liked it or not.
When challenging peer reviewed scientific research papers made by leading scientists in their field it helps to get the basic facts straight. Otherwise you lose all credibility. It is far better to take a questioning stance than make patently false statements.
The issue is complicated by the fact that people differ in their genes. There is widely acknowledged evidence that some people have genes that protect from cancer and others have genes that make them vulnerable to specific cancer. Saying cell phones give people cancer is an over simplification.
The side of the argument that I take is the side of the truth. The truth is often comlicated.
Look up the inverse square law.
The EM transmitters you mention are not placed directly against human flesh. So you need to reduce the wattage by dividing it by the square of the distance between the transmitter and human reciever. In addition the intensity should be further reduced by any shielding (including air).
You will be suprised at how sharply the intensity of radiation level drops over distance. Or to put it in the converse. How markedly the radiation exposure increases as you approach the source.
To say that EM radiation can only heat things up is wrong. Look up the effects of excessive xrays or gamma rays.
DNA and RNA damage might not be the pathway. What about the framework of the nucleus. All those nano scale tubules and pathways that we have not even mapped yet. The DNA is less than half of the picture.
It's why you wear a lead apron in an x-ray room and you don't when you watch TV.
I might, if cell phones actually produced x-rays and gamma rays.
Heating is the only effect non ionizing radiation has...might as well ban hot packs while your at it.
Thanks for proving my point about things already taken into consideration...
The point here is that do you want to wait for the government to catch up with legislation or someone to prove that cell radiation is neutral or good for you. Prudence dictates a cautious approach until science can figure it out. So minimize on cell phone use. Try to use it hands free or with a headset and don't let kids use them.
The writing is already on the wall. IMO this is just another way to cash in on grant money by saying the sky is falling when clearly it can't.
DNA is getting damaged ALL THE TIME, mostly by reactive oxygen species, a byproduct of mitochondria metabolism, but also by various toxic compounds and by naturally occuring ionizing radiation.
The damage is constantly repaired by specialized cellular complexes. All proteins including those which build those repair complexes are destabilized by heat. The idea that prolonged heating of brain tissue, even if only by a few degrees C, can lead to increased error rate in DNA repair and in turn to higher mutation rate is PERFECTLY VALID from scientific point of view.
It is also possible that rotation of molecular dipoles which try to align themselves with rapidly changing EM fields disrupts some weak molecular interactions which can then lead to increase error rate.
Not to mention that we are still VERY FAR from completely understanding how cells work and there might be some unknown processes sensitive to cell phone radiation which are still waiting to be discovered!
Don't spread disinformation. The fact that you don't know of any mechanism by which something can happen doesn't mean there isn't one.
This is a very serious issue as the health of billions of people is at stake!
Finally if brain tumor is indeed more likely to occur on the side of head where people keep their cell phones its really hard to argue its a coincidence!
No need to stop using cell phones, just use hands free sets, and keep the phone itself away from the head, that will eliminate the heating of brain tissue and most likely eliminate the danger.
That quote is NOT true. UVA radiation (which is non-ionizing) can help cause cancer nondirectly. The human body is amazingly complex and there are several pathways to damage other than directly ionizing molecules. I made a post like this a while back so sorry if it sounds repetitive.
I think people need to appreciate the incredible complexity involved in these situations, and realize unless you happen to be an expert (and sometimes not even then), you should never be dismissive of harmful possibilites. There have been some positive studies, yes, but nothing to the degree that a scientist would consider concluding cellphones are 0 safe.
Source?
Irrelevant to the topic.
Then like I said you should probably ban hot packs, or long strolls on the beach too...
It's not valid to say that heat causes cancer, there is no evidence it does. Talk about disinformation.
The burden of proof is on you. It's also possible that cell phones attract invisible flying spaghetti monsters that mess with DNA but there is no more evidence for this than what you're talking about.
Again this is proof of nothing. How is fear mongering better than "spreading disinformation"?
It's not that I don't know of a mechanism it's that NO ONE knows one. And the fact that you can't produce one is certianly not a good reason to start worring about cell phones...quite the opposite in fact.
It might be if there were an issue or evidence that non ionizing radiation can cause cancer, but since there isn't...
Actually it's ridiculous to say there's a correlation since people probably use that ear in concert with many other devices too. It's like saying using a pencil causes tennis elbow because people write with the same hand that tennis elbow develops on. Never mind it's their dominant hand and they also use it to hold a racquet when they play tennis too...
"HSV Technologies" makes a stungun that ionizes channels of air with 193nm far-UV lasers, then sends an electrical shock along the conduit it creates.
As I see the cel phone radiation issue, an operating phone is adding energy to materials around it, and in some cases, that can provide enough to bring about a chemical reaction if it is already likely to happen on its own, even if it is just heat we're talking about. Whether that poses a health risk is another issue, but there have definitely been some very heavy users for a while now, and cel phones only keep getting weaker output as we're able to send intelligible signals at low power levels and more cells become available.
But sadly, everyone already knows the answer whether they're harmful or not, and none of them agree on it!
Do cell phones produce UVA radiation? If not this statement is not relevant to the discussion...
Inverse square law data = problem.
[ahem] The report (admittedly second-hand) did state that this correlation was noted in adolescents that made significant use of cell-phones. The implication is that this corrrelation did not exist in adolescents that used pencils (little joke. Very small). While it's not *conclusive*, I think it's enough for a worried "hmmmmmm.". Maybe it's just the medium of discussion, but I find your apparent rigid denial that we should even consider the possibility of a problem to be a little worrying.
Show me a mechanism and I'll admit I'm wrong. Until then there simply is no scientific basis to state cell phones cause cancer.
There are plenty of well documented mechanisms that EM radiation causes cancer. e.g.
Ultraviolet radiation and skin cancer: molecular mechanisms
http://www.ingent...ler=true
The statement IS relevant to the discussion. Someone above appeared to make the assertion that if radiation is non-ionizing, then it does not cause cancer. So ANY example of non-ionizing radiation that causes cancer would show that assumption to be flawed.
As far as i know the most trustworthy studies havent been able to make a connection between cellphones and cancer.There will always be people with different opinions but until there is convincing evidence its not proven.
Time will tell if they are right or wrong.
Not a perfect test as mice are not identical to humans. However if there were a correlation then work could be done to indentify the specific mechanism and see if that applied to humans.
The caveat is that correlation never implies causality which is what a few "pencil" comments above were trying to say.
Of course it might be that there is more than one causal factor. Like concurrently using a cell phone and being in a strong electro-magnetic field. There are so many variables it is hard to know where to start other than look at the actual sample based data. This is what these scientist have done and have presumably found statistically significant results.
Perhaps all these kids have a clock radio on the same side as the phone. The clock radio emits a large EMF.
No it isn't relevant because cell phones (what this discussion is about) don't produce UVA radiation. In fact the initial statement wasn't that UVA radiation produces cancer it was that it INDIRECTLY is POSSIBLE that it can cause cancer.
I simply thought it easier to assume the argument and concede the point (that UVA radiation can indirectly cause cancer) rather than get off topic.
It's much easier to merely point out that the non ionizing radiation which was implicated in possibly being able to indirectly cause cancer IS NOT THE SAME RADIATION PRODUCED BY CELL PHONES and therefore NOT RELEVANT TO THE CONVERSATION....
Get it?
Unless of course you're ACTUALLY saying it doesn't matter what kind of radiation you're exposed to, and in that case I dare you to stand next to an unshielded nuclear core for an hour...
What made it relevant to the conversation is when the first statement was made, implying that ALL non-ionizing radiation does not cause cancer. If you are averse to tangential exceptions being raised, then avoid making over-generalized and untrue statements that, if not contended, would easily win the debate.
As for the EM fields however...it's complete nonsense.
If you actually read what I wrote I was NOT being averse to exceptions being made, in fact I was willing to concede the point, because the "point" being made had no impact whatsoever on the premise of the argument.
That being established, I suppose what remains is to evaluate, as you said, whether there is a plausible mechanism of action (or series of studies) for cell phone radiation to (indirectly) increase the risk of cancer. Else there might not be reason for alarm. Maybe at some point I will actually go to wikipedia and a few other sites to see what evidence or expert advise is out there.
Visible light has enough energy to excite a few molecules(e.g. the rods and cones in your eye; fluorescent paint).
By the time you get down to mobile phone radiation the amount of energy in a single quanta is 100 000 to a million times less than visible light; all it can do is wiggle molecules about a little, heating the tissue.
It's also interesting to note that most studies of low-dose response to ionizing radiation have found an inverse correlation with cancer. A proposed mechanism is that the stimulation of the body's repair mechanism is more important the damage it causes at low doses and that helps in repairing the thousands of DNA damages that occur to every single cell in your body every day from metabolism.
If there's a problem, outlaw cell phones and put it to rest. We can start by outlawing them in the workplace, followed by public facilities, and then any place within a reasonable distance of a school (say 50 miles.)
It's scary how many trusted knowledgeable people begin spreading fear about the unknown(by this I mean what we can't see or touch directly); like our
friend Mr(no Dr in his title) "David Carpenter, director of the Institute of Health and Environment at the University of Albany"
It's interesting to note that we are dealing physics(and for our buzzwords, biology), but no one who understands these fields of science,
like a physicist or biophysicist, is presenting the "evidence".
The website of the Institute of Health and Environment at the University of Albany
http://www.albany.edu/ihe/
I took an excerpt from their mission statement, to give you an idea of the ideas behind this institute.
This non-profit organisation funds research in "...hazardous waste management, occupational health, risk assessment, risk management, risk communication and social and psychological aspects of environmental pollution regarding human behaviour..."
Someone who works for this type of institution is passionate about saving and protecting people.
How can they possibly provide unbiased research, based on the scientific method.
This discussion is not about physics or science, it's about people and their fear of what they can't see or touch.
Here is someone local to me, who scared 700 local people into signing a petition to stop a power substation from being built.
http://www.voltageshock.co.nz/
Unlike Mr Carpenter, Dr Doering is a doctor, and spread disinformation about power cables and cancer to a huge audience.
Who isn't going to trust and support a local family Doctor who has children.
We can't stop these people from expressing themselves nor do we want to eliminate freedom of speech.
We need a scientific organisation that steps in when these protests arise to inform the public and most importantly the people spreading the fear because they are the most scared.
What did you do? Hook up a linear amplifier to it? CBs are only 5 watts.
If we ever decide we know enough and further testing is not required it will be the end of science.
You would just as desperately defend the flat Earth assumption if that was the one you prefered and you violently oppose to any experiments which might decide its not flat.
The FIRST and most important rule of science:
EXPERIMENT DECIDES EVERYTHING
The second most important rule:
If there is any doubt whatsoever it needs to be DECIDED BY EXPERIMENT
If human health is in danger it is even more important not to allow your prejudice get in the way of scientific inquiry.
And if its half the bloody human population that might be in danger arguing against further testing based on your ignorant beliefs is extremely irresponsible!
Any molecular biology book.
I don't have time to educate you, but here is a first example of relevant article i could find:
http://www.ncbi.n...alpos=18&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
And quote from abstract:
You are free to go to pubmed (http://www.ncbi.n.../entrez) and look for yourself, type in "heat shock DNA repair" query and you have 450 articles to start with, then try other terms.
Heat shock has a profound effect on all cells, and its no wonder as proteins and biochemical reactions are very heat sensitive, thats why rising the temp by 10 degrees will kill humans. Thats why rising temp by 2 degrees might increase cancer chance.
Remember we are not arguing what happens but what MIGHT happen, so your position is really impossible to defend.
Let me guess, anything that proves you wrong is irrelevant?
This is the simple and obvious way in which heat can lead to DNA damage, mutations happen all the time and so heat only needs to destabilize repair to lead to mutations.
Haha, amazing that with your lack of knowledge about human biology you feel entitled to argue here. At least you might learn something: Ever heard the term "warm-blooded"? Well humans are warm-blooded animal species - we maintain thermal homeostasis.
Unfortunately it only works on the body as a whole so if you heat up part of your brain it wont help much.
Nothing like a straw man argument. I am saying that the *HYPOTHESIS* that "heat from intense cell phone usage might slightly rise cancer probability due to heating of brain tissue" is perfectly valid from scientific point of view.
Do you understand the difference between hypothesis and fact?
The burden of proof is on experiments of course. This is only a *hypothesis*. Its actually well known science (although not to you obviously) that all dipoles align themselves with EM field lines, it is also well known fact that most biological molecules are dipoles. It is obvious that any disruption is subtle at best, but it is a perfectly valid hypothesis that they exist.
This is your hypothesis, if you wont to test it I wont stop you.
Lol, this is a *fact*.
A *fact* which proves that anyone who argues there can be no possible mechanism by which cell phone radiation leads to increase in cancer prevalence is an ignorant fool as he argues without even knowing how the system works.
All that can be argued today is that it is improbable and that the effect if it exist is small, but it is completely unacceptable to claim that it does not exist! Further research is needed!
I gave you 2 *possible* mechanisms which could explain it. And the reason to start worrying is not them but the RESEARCH done so far, if some research shows the rise in cancer probability we are obliged to treat it seriously! If there was no effect how come the results show that there is? Let me guess it was bad science right? And the one you base your claims on is the right science? Well we have to treat all science the same, if there is bad science other scientists will point out its shortfalls, but if there are credible results that shows there is an effect it has to be treated very seriously due to extreme impact it might have.
Besides if one study shows the effect and the other doesn't we have to consider the effect exist and continue research until we know why we get different results. We don't just assume that it one nullifies the other or something.
And tell me how do YOU know there isn't any?
There is research published by scientists in peer reviewed journals. This is the BEST possible evidence humanity can produce! What would convince you a revelation from god?
ITS COMPARED TO PEOPLE WHO DON'T USE MOBILE PHONES, so any other device is necessarily included in the sample unless you can name a device which is only used by people who use mobile phones and is not a mobile phone?
Name just one such device.
Do you even realize that this issue could lead to brain cancer and horrible death of millions of people? Do you realize that if that is the case you will share part of the blame?
Is it really so hard to understand that situation like this has to be treated very seriously?
There might be a serious threat to health of billions of people, it can be easily prevented by using hands free sets and keeping the phone away from the head. People need to know this to make an informed decision and your loud and ignorant arguments prevent the message from getting through.
Name just one such device.
Hmmm, bluetooth headset at a lovely 2.4GHz, just like a microwave. Yes, I know, much less power, and not everyone with a mobile phone has one, but the device fitted your criteria, so I jumped in to "Name just one such device."
Of course, I don't use either device myself.
Yeah, thats probably closest you can get to such a thing.
As you say it generates a much weaker version of a cell phone EM field so its rather hard to argue it could lead to a cancer without at the same time implicating cell phones.
Its also relatively rare compared to cell phones.
The testing has been done for fifty years or more and there has been ZERO evidence of cancer caused by the frequencies we're talking about...period. There is simply no documented mechanism and until there is you're pissing in the wind because you haven't a scientific leg to stand on.
Not according to you, according to you everything should be decided AGAINST experiment in favor of supposition garnered form people needing grant money they gain at the expense of fear mongering.
If it were this statement might be valid.
Are you acquainted with the idea of free speech and the free exchange of ideas? Or do you curl up with Mein Kamph every night with your warm milk?
IOW there is no proof of such...just idiotic supposition like the kind you've been inflicting on this thread ad nauseam.
No actually it's quite the opposite since by definition you CAN'T support any position that says cell phones cause cancer. I on the other hand have fifty years of human beings being around much higher frequency non ionizing radiation than microwaves with no evidence it causes cancer.
No anything that claims DNA damage other than microwave radiation is tho.
Last time I checked there was no government gestapo one needed to apply to in order to espouse an opinion. Perhaps your fascist/elitist/egomaniacal mentality is offended by this, but honestly I could care less.
How did your brain learn human speech? Hot packs heat the skin LOCALLY...JUST LIKE CELL PHONES. FFS Try it sometime if you can't grasp the concept.
Yes but apparently YOU don't. I'd rather use the well established facts I've already been using to make an argument, not play the "what if" game and be so pretentious and ignorant as to claim this somehow trumps the FACTS.
My point was without facts it's JUST AS VALID A hypothesis as yours is...next time I'll try to explain it to you as if you were three years old it MIGHT avoid further comprehension problems on your part.
No it's a fact that proves that anyone who argues that there IS a mechanism (for which there is ZERO proof) that cell phone radiation DOES cause cancer is an ignorant fool.
No it can be argued that it does not cause cancer because there is no evidence for it. This is like saying you can argue that creationism is merely improbable because we don't fully understand the origins universe. Absolute nonsense.
Stop right there, your possible mechanisms are irrelevant until you have some proof they actually do what you say they do. Especially since the facts say that microwave radiation doesn't effect DNA and hence can't cause cancer.
I don't have to know that any more than I have to know that there are not any studies showing the earth to be flat. All I have to do is look at the data which states that microwave radiation can't mutate cells in humans and look at pictures from space respectively.
OK here's where I got completely bored with arguing whether or not the sky is blue with someone who is convinced it's green.
Basically if you can't show a mechanism kindly quit humping my leg and go talk to Art Bell about your feelings that cell phones are causing cancer or put here by aliens to kill us all or whatever other unsubstantiated nonsense about cell phones you can dream up
They make you afraid of letting your kids out at night, they make you afriad to eat certain foods, then they make you afraid to use resources, and then they make you afraid of using communication.
Sounds an awful lot like many other episodes in the recent past.
Don't people know by now the experts are all knowing and you must trust them blindly? They can do no wrong their data proves it.
It's already been tested and ruled out countless times over 5 decades. I want my tax money to be used for something productive rather than re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-testing the effects of radiowaves on humans.
I had an early cell phone that used to heat up the side of my head, and leave it sweating. No problem, they told me -- it's perfectly safe. Uh-uh. The really sexy woman in line behind me... from a microwave phone engineering lab (who'd been drinking far too much, on a regular basis from her complexion) got very angry when I suggested to the clerk there was any possible problem with cell phones. I have no doubt...the problem she was mostly worried about was her paycheck.
Its hard to argue with someone who thinks cell phones has been tested for the last 50 years.
Show me one study from 50 years ago which tests effects of microwave generator of relevant wattage placed next to human head.
If you think that data on the hazard of power lines is relevant here, then you are very wrong.
Finally, tell me how do you explain increased cancer chance on the side of the head where people use cell phones?
SH: Cell phones have been tested by the military for 50 years . Current cellphones are all based off old military radio communication. All of which have been proven not to cause cancer.
As for the increased chance of cancer related to cell phone use, you'll have to show me a study that outlines that finding.
As above, show me one study from 50 years ago which tests effects of microwave generator of relevant wattage placed next to human head.
I see you are a fan conspiracy theories.
But there isn't because YOU say so, nevermind the research published in peer reviewed journals.
Yes, if all else fails invoke free speech rights!
It only seems idiotic to you cause you lack the necessary eduction, but thats not my fault.
Yes we are safe *BY DEFINITION*! Thats my favorite claim so far.
I showed you how heating associated with cell phone use can lead to increase in DNA mutations.
Either you can't grasp the idea or you just dismiss it out of hand cause it doesn't fit your world view.
Well if you know nothing about a topic you should not voice your opinion. I am sorry if it looks to you like a "fascist/elitist/egomaniacal mentality" but thats how it is.
Well to bad you were also talking about "long strolls on the beach". Think.
Facts are scientific research shows increase in cancer prevalence which occurs on the side of head on which people use cell phones.
But those facts are bad, aren't they? You have your OWN better facts, which you are happily using to spread disinformation.
If you think your hypothesis is as valid as the one I presented it's a great proof of your incompetence in the area we are discussing.
Omg, your attention span is really limited, didn't I tell you to remember that I argue there *MIGHT BE* not that there is a link? Focus please.
But there is evidence, there are scientific studies published in peer reviewed journals.
But you of course know better.
So let me get this right, you are saying that the mechanism is irrelevant until we can get a proof but we can't do research to try and find such proof cause there is no proof?
Do you even see your circular reasoning?
And as for the 2nd part I said microwave radiation could lead to mutations indirectly, *INDIRECTLY*, so it doesn't matter that it can't cause mutations on its own as mutations are created all the time and its enough if microwave radiation destabilizes repair!
I see, you know what you know and you don't need some dumb scientists to tell you how things are.
Or is it the place you realized you were wrong all along?
I showed you the mechanism, your own ignorance blinds you. The world is not as simple as you think. Try to stick to areas where you have some expertise (if there are such), cell biology certainly isn't one of them.
I also see you conveniently left out the most problematic part for your stance - the fact that a study shows the cancer has higher chance of occurrence on the side of the head where people use cell phones.
You said it may be due to other devices, well name them, what other devices used only by people who use mobile phones can lead to increased brain cancer occurrence?
So id like to sum up the discussion so far:
1. You know that microwave radiation used by cell phones is not ionizing and can't damage DNA.
2. Based on 1 you claim that cell phones can't rise cancer risk
3. I agree with 1 but not with 2.
4. I know that microwave radiation does not need to damage DNA directly to increases mutation rates. It can act indirectly for example by interfering with DNA repair. This invalidates the inference that 1 leads to 2.
5. You disagree with 4 but you fail to provide any arguments why this is not the case, based on your comments you seem to not understand how it can be possible.
6. There are quite a few scientific research papers that show an increase in cancer occurrence in cell phone users.
7. You claim that the research mentioned in 6 is wrong, scientists lie on purpose and that it is a part of a conspiracy to get grant money. You however fail to provide any proof of those claims, other then a misguided belief that 1 leads to 2.
Did I get your stance right?
Nanoparticles in the Brain
Tiny particles enter the brain after being inhaled
JIM GILES / Nature 9jan04
Nanoparticles%u2014tiny lumps of matter that could one day to be used to build faster computer circuits and improve drug delivery systems%u2014can travel to the brain after being inhaled, according to researchers from the United States1.
The finding sounds a cautionary note for advocates of nanotechnology, but may also lead to a fuller understanding of the health effects of the nanosized particles produced by diesel engines.
Gunter Oberdorster of the University of Rochester in New York and colleagues tracked the progress of carbon particles that were only 35 nanometres in diameter and had been inhaled by rats. In the olfactory bulb%u2014an area of the brain that deals with smell%u2014nanoparticles were detected a day after inhalation, and levels continued to rise until the experiment ended after seven days.
"These are the first data to show this," says Ken Donaldson, a toxicologist at the University of Edinburgh, UK. "I would never have thought of looking for inhaled nanoparticles in the brain."
Substances such as drugs can cross from the brain into the blood, but Oberdorster believes that the carbon nanoparticles enter the brain by moving down the brain cells that pick up odours and transmit signals to the olfactory bulb. He says that unpublished work, in which his group blocked one of the rats' nostrils and tracked which side of the brain the nanoparticles reached, appears to confirm this.
Little is known about what effect nanoparticles will have when they reach the brain. The toxicity of the nanoparticles that are currently being used to build prototype nanosized electronic circuits%u2014such as carbon nanotubes, which are produced in labs around the world%u2014has not been thoroughly assessed.
But Donaldson says that there is a growing feeling that other nanoparticles, such as those produced by diesel exhausts, may be damaging to some parts of our body. He estimates that people in cities take in about 25 million nanoparticles with every breath. These particles are believed to increase respiratory and cardiac problems, probably by triggering an inflammatory reaction in the lungs.
Oberdorster's unpublished work includes evidence that some nanoparticles may trigger a similar inflammatory reaction in the brains of rats.
References
Oberdorster, G. et al. Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhalation Toxicology, (in press, 2004).
source: http://cmbi.bjmu....1/42.htm 17jan04
Hi All
Bye for now and from the Past.
Have a nice day!
neurohacker
I try to keep up with the news and try to go by the most likely to be true explanation ,to me it seems that there are at least as many studies showing there is no risk than those suggesting otherwise.Its certainly not proven that there is any risk but to conclude there is no risk would be wrong, there is a need for convincing research as long as there are studies suggesting there might be cancer risks, and enough people believing in them.
The people dont benefit from a polarised view on any controversial subject ,its only beneficial for the ones who cash in on the uncertainty.
1. There is no certainty in science. The level of cancers may have fallen below the confidence levels that technology allowed at that time. That was then, this is now.
2. The use of handsets by hams was a. at lower frequencies; b. lower frequency/duration than mobile users.
3. The inverse square law greatly diminishes exposure intensities for most personal radio communications.
Serious, highly qualified professionals are concerned. If there's one chance in a million of cancer, with a userbase of 1 billion, that's 1000 cancers. Whether someone *needs* to use cellphones is immaterial to the argument; the question is whether they've been advised of the risks, if any. That can only be decided by further experiment.
People have been working in close proximity to high powered radar and radio transmitters since world war II; spanning the entire range from hundreds of GHz(microwaves) to a few thousand Hz.
There will be no breakthroughs in statistics that will suddenly enable you to see a strong correlation in data where previously there was none.
It makes no sense to worry about any risk that could potentially be hiding down there in the noise because the magnitude is necessarily tiny and it could just as well be negative(i.e. reducing risk of brain cancer).
If people have been writing with pencils for a hundred years and playing tennis for only 25 years and the statistical study shows that the occurrence tennis elbow has increased in last 20 years or so, then you know what is the cause!
The question is not to keep on doing the statistical survey until you find a correlation and then start the study on the cause.
And people like you you who get so emotional about such things are the worst ones to take any decisions about these topics.
should read
The question is to keep on doing the statistical survey...
Sorry, but this is downright "stupid", (pardon me for using this word!), the radio antenna is not carried on the head by the amateur operators, the receiver-transmitter system is carried near the body only in the war front where those poor guys die from a bullet shot anyways, so you can't make them a subject of long term study. But mobiles carry the receiver (antenna, if you want to call them) with them and are using them near the brain all the time.
You are right, this agitation is the most disturbing aspect...
No one here can show a mechanism for microwave radiation causing cancer for a good reason....
The next person to post that 'we need to take these concerns seriously' BETTER personally own some kind of mobile that emits more than 10 watts of power OUTSIDE of the aforementioned MAN-MADE BROADCAST RF SPECTRUM.
I agree with Modernmystic... most of you need to go stand next to a naked nuclear pile for several hours while measuring the EM radiation from your phones... then maybe natural selection will have done it's job with the lot of you.
I would put it somwhere in the economics controversy range,not the god controversy range when it comes to agitation.
But i get what you`re sugesting.
Personally i think all private vehicles should have a cell phone signal damper that engages when the vehicle is in motion to stop the one true major health risk of cell phone use: texting or talking while driving.
Good post, although I think you meant to put it in the nanoparticle news item.
I would add that diesel particles cannot be filtered by the lungs as they are too fine. They have been found as the seed inside many embolisms. Diesel fumes are very nasty. For some reason that billowing black smoke is exempt from emissions standards even here in California. One wonders how much damage this does to the arterial walls.