
Major Study Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link Between Cellphone Radiation and Cancer - daegloe
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/01/health/cellphone-radiation-cancer.html
======
neuronexmachina
The actual study findings:
[https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.htm...](https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html)

From the fact sheet:

"Rats and mice were exposed to RFR in special chambers for up to two years, or
most of their natural lives. NTP scientists looked for a range of cancers and
noncancer health effects.

Exposure to RFR began in the womb for rats and at 5-6 weeks old for mice. The
RFR exposure was intermittent, 10 minutes on and 10 minutes off, totaling
about 9 hours each day. The RFR levels ranged from 1.5 to 6 watts per kilogram
of body weight in rats, and 2.5 to 10 watts per kilogram in mice.

The chambers were shielded rooms with a transmitting antenna that radiated RFR
fields, plus rotating stirrers that generated a uniform field.4,5 Pilot
studies established field strengths that did not raise animal body
temperatures excessively.6

The rats and mice were exposed to whole body RFR at frequencies of 900 and
1900 megahertz, respectively, from two technologies – Code Division Multiple
Access (CDMA) and Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM).

NTP and RFR experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) and the IT’IS Foundation designed and built the chambers specifically
for these studies. "

Also:

"Were there any surprise findings? NTP found longer lifespans among the
exposed male rats. This may be explained by an observed decrease in chronic
kidney problems that are often the cause of death in older rats"

~~~
ChuckMcM
I particularly like " _...strengths that did not raise animal body
temperatures excessively._ " No sense microwaving the rats to death. For a
70kg person, that exposure (using the rat scale, 105 - 420 watts) for your
entire life. Vs a cell phone which has an effective radiated power ERP of
about 1 watt[1]. So somewhere between 1% and .25% of the power.

Cell phone signals fall off with the square of the distance so the bulk of the
power of a cellphones RF energy that you are exposed to comes from the
handset.

[1] "Meanwhile, the total power emitted from the cell phone itself ranges from
0.75 to 1 watt. According to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), this
is an acceptably safe amount of power for a cell phone since their cut-off or
specific absorption rate is only 1.6 watts per kilogram (W/kg). As a result,
the power radiated from a cell phone is considered as non-ionizing as opposed
to ionizing." \--
[https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml](https://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/EbruBek.shtml)

~~~
username3
What if you’re around 105-420 people with cellphones radiating 1 watt each?

~~~
gotocake
Again, the energy falls off with the square of the distance, so unless those
hundreds of people have _very_ long arms and decide to press their phone
against you...

~~~
eganist
Not trying to be a troll -- Tokyo subways come to mind.

~~~
hwillis
1 watt corresponds to an in-use phone. Heavy data use. Even a call has much
lower power. Unless the phone is actively doing something, the cell pings are
very brief and use very little power.

~~~
docker_up
You're discounting the fact that cell phones are more used for data than for
talking and data is always being transmitted, especially with apps that run in
the background.

~~~
seandougall
But how many people use their phones for data while holding them against their
heads? (Not to mention in a shielded cubicle?)

~~~
jjeaff
And how many can even get service in a crowded subway?

~~~
guelo
most. offline people doing podcasts and games probably don't emmit much less.

------
reptation
Whether the effect was large or small, there is a fundamental scientific
question: how does non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? The fact that it can
requires better models of how EM waves and biological matter interact.

~~~
ucha
Yes. It has been known for decades that biological matter resonates at
microwave frequencies but we've been told over and over that non-ionizing
radiations cannot cause cancer [0]. DNA is an electricly charged dipole that
will heat up when exposed to microwaves and that would damage it [1].

[0]:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000634950...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006349502754738)

[1]:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2304485](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2304485)

~~~
xenadu02
There's a lot of water in the way between DNA and any microwave source.
Microwaves do not penetrate water very well - part of the reason rain tends to
cause problems with microwave links. Also the reason microwave ovens work: by
heating the food.

So what is the proposed mechanism by which microwave energy is supposed to
heat DNA enough to damage it?

~~~
guelo
Microwave ovens are able to heat several pounds of meat all the way through to
the center. So it can penetrate at least a few wet inches of tissue.

~~~
emddudley
Most of the microwave power does not deeply penetrate something like a whole
ham. The microwaves are mostly absorbed by the outer layers and then the heat
conducts through the inner portions.

The journal article below contains lots of detail. It claims that microwaves
penetrate about 3.8 mm in cooked ham and 9.9 mm in cooked beef.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657497/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4657497/)

~~~
rixed
> The microwaves are mostly absorbed by the > outer layers and then the heat
> conducts > through the inner portions.

Then why does the plate have to be slowly rotated within the oven? I used to
believe that it was for the waves peaks (distant from one another by a pair of
centimeters) to be able to reach every point of the inside.

But if the inside is heated by conduction, which propagates evenly in all
directions, then why care rotating the plate?

~~~
canhascodez
Microwave ovens do indeed have hot spots[0]. Conduction doesn't propagate
evenly in very many foodstuffs, and you still want to avoid overheating any
one spot.

    
    
      [0] https://www.evilmadscientist.com/2011/microwave-oven-diagnostics-with-indian-snack-food/

------
chiefalchemist
> "But the results apply only to male rats and involve radio frequencies long
> out of routine use."

"For decades, health experts have struggled to determine whether or not
cellphones can cause cancer. On Thursday, a federal agency released the final
results of what experts call the world’s largest and most costly experiment to
look into the question. The study originated in the Clinton administration,
cost $30 million and involved some 3,000 rodents"

World's largest? Most costly? And more or less not applicable to current
reality?

It is exactly things such as this that trigger the general public to mistrust
government and mistrust science. What's most unnerving is the gov and the
science expected the public to not respond as expected.

------
whatshisface
> _The rodents in the studies were exposed to radiation nine hours a day for
> two years — far longer even than heavy users of cellphones._

What about one hour per day over 18 years?

~~~
vertexFarm
Or how about reasonable levels of power? Ten watts per kilo is an absolutely
nutso-bismol bonkers level of radiation compared to what real people and
animals are exposed to. I don't spend twelve hours a day inside a magnetron.

I'd like to see the results of an experiment where they have a highly
controlled pair of populations that are identical in every way except one
group of rats is in a Faraday cage. It would be ideal if they were still
exposed to natural radio frequencies--after all, radio is not an exclusively
man-made phenomenon. But of course GSM doesn't get through the atmosphere
easily. A long-term study like that might actually be useful.

These studies where they bathe the rats in a few thousand times the average
ambient power of our cell network are utterly blatant examples of confirmation
bias in science publishing. They cranked up the amplitude until it had to have
an effect on biology--stopping just shy of "significant heating" of tissues.
Basically it's a microwave on defrost, complete with a scattering reflector
and turntable to make sure the rats cook evenly. Doesn't seem like good faith
to me. And of course dumbed-down science journalism will immediately clickbait
it into the headline "Cellphones Will Literally Kill You," as is tradition.

~~~
seandougall
I’m sure you could get some grad students to volunteer to sit around in the
lab and play on their phones, if you wanted to up the exposure in a way that
mimics realistic patterns...

------
miles
The World Health Organization back in 2011:

WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk
[http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.h...](http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/index.html)

> _Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the
> World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same
> "carcinogenic hazard" category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform._

~~~
saulrh
Classified in IARC 2B, which also includes things like pickled vegetables,
magnets, coffee, sassafras, styrene, and ginkgo extract. Also aflatoxin M1
(LD50 ~300 ug/kg), vanadium(V) oxide (LD50 ~10 mg/kg inhaled), HIV, and
nitrogen mustards (chemotherapy drugs that also happen to be classified _and
stockpiled_ as chemical weapons). Even the items that CNN picked out, the
cancer risk from those is the _least_ of your worries. I won't call the 2B
category "useless", since it actually _is_ a list of compounds that might
theoretically (but have not been shown to) cause cancer, but, well...

------
jgamman
At this point in time it's not really relevant to say cellphone vs no-
cellphone. It's death by cellphone vs saved by cellphone ie, you need to
compare how many people have been able to call for help in an emergency, get a
taxi rather than drink driving etc because they had access to a phone in their
pocket.

It's like comparing new drugs to the best off-patent generic, not a placebo
sugar pill.

------
Reason077
_”the rat study examined the effects of a radio frequency associated with an
early generation of cellphone technology, one that fell out of routine use
years ago.”_

In some parts of the world (UK, Europe, Asia, South Africa, Nigeria, Peru),
the 900Mhz GSM band is now being reused as LTE band 8.

------
diminoten
It's not great news, this study. It could be wrong, it could be inapplicable
to reality, it could be a lot of things that mitigate the results in one way
or another.

But I think we can all agree that it would have been nicer to hear that there
was "No Evidence" of a link.

------
feefie
If you're concerned at all and interested in some safety tips (from the
California Department of Public Health, page last updated December 2017):

[https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Do...](https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CCDPHP/DEODC/EHIB/CDPH%20Document%20Library/Cell-
Phone-Guidance.pdf)

[https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/pages/nr17-086.aspx](https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/OPA/pages/nr17-086.aspx)

------
DINKDINK
How many studies were run that /didn't/ find any evidence? If that fact isn't
included in the conclusion then this could be accidental p-value hacking.

------
isomorph
Check this out for some meta stuff on the possible link between mobile phones
and acoustic neuroma [https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-
exposu...](https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/radiation-
exposure/cellular-phones.html) Anecdotally - doctors believe it may be a
cause, scientists don't

------
mtgx
> _Current cellphones represent a fourth generation, known as 4G, and 5G
> phones are expected to debut around 2020. They employ much higher
> frequencies, and these radio waves are far less successful at penetrating
> the bodies of humans and rats, scientists say._

I'm confused by this statement. 4G uses even lower frequencies than 900 MHz,
and this range up to 1900MHz will continue to be used for decades more, 5G or
not.

As for 5G itself, as I mentioned in another comment, there's also the issue of
carriers needing to install many more towers, which I believe are cancer-
causing for anyone living in the immediate area due to the power they radiate.

I also imagine the 5G towers will use much more power than say 3G or 4G powers
because if 5G wireless tech can't pass easily through objects, then you bet
the carriers are going to "maximize" the distance. How? Through more power. So
I doubt 5G will be much safer overall. In fact, I'm willing to bet it will be
significantly less safe than previous wireless technologies.

So to ensure companies like Qualcomm and U.S. carriers don't get away with
causing millions to die "because we found out too late", like this NYT article
seems to be implying about the previous tech, we should already start
enforcing laws or starting lawsuits against them and make them pay out
billions, if evidence is indeed found (whether through more studies, or
through discovery of what the company employees knew about these issues) that
their tech was harmful to humans.

~~~
driverdan
> which I believe are cancer-causing for anyone living in the immediate area
> due to the power they radiate.

I downvoted you because there is no evidence of this. You also state they
wiull "use more power" but power output is regulated by the FCC.

~~~
mooneater
I for one much appreciate downvoters sharing their reasons

~~~
driverdan
I usually reply with my reason, especially if it may not be obvious to the OP.

------
kopo
Man can you imagine if 1 billion people end up with brain tumors. How would
that even get handled? I have no idea how hard tumor surgery is but I am
guessing hospitals will have to be turned into large Foxconn type factories or
something.

~~~
dcow
Have you ever been to a “Foxconn type factory”? I’m not sure it’s exactly the
picture you’re trying to paint.

------
sjg007
Big market for faraday cage pocket liners now! Obviously they will have to
leave the open air side on shielded to get reception.

------
Leary
I'm not sure if I'm being practical or silly, but is there a cell phone cover
that would minimize such radiation?

~~~
driverdan
This isn't something to worry about unless you're using your phone for 9h a
day and have boosted the power output beyond the legal limit. Even then there
isn't an explanation as to how it would cause cancer.

~~~
vertexFarm
Unpopular but entirely correct. The study used power up to ten watts per
kilogram. Your phone uses around a watt or less compared to your whole body
mass. Let's say the average of 62 kilos. Your exposure is less than a fiftieth
of what was produced in the experiment, probably less because you aren't
irradiated 24 hours a day--you take it off your person to charge at some
point. And the radio produces far less wattage when it's idle, which is going
to be the vast majority of your day. Compared to the amount the rats were
getting constantly, this would be a truly minuscule fraction of exposure over
time.

Even with such extraordinary amplitude, the correlation was very slight. Trust
me, everyone has much bigger health risks to worry about than radio. If you've
ever had a drink in your life you've done worse.

------
bencollier49
So what sort of exposure does one get from standing near a mobile phone base
station mast?

------
mullingitover
Did they account for the gender of the researchers in this study?

~~~
uw_rob
Yes.

Some key quotes about this:

> The female rats did not show evidence of a link between the radiation and
> such tumors.

> Experts say it is not unusual for cancer patterns to vary between sexes in
> both people and animals, including the study’s mice and rats.

~~~
byproxy
Operative word being "researchers", here. Apparently the gender of researchers
conducting experiments on rats has shown to change outcomes :
[https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out-
rode...](https://www.nature.com/news/male-researchers-stress-out-
rodents-1.15106)

------
senectus1
meh i'm safe... my phone is always in my hands and I use bluetooth 18 hours a
day every day.

Thats safe right?

------
mike22223333
The government should outlaw the link between them.

------
mooneater
2-3% vs 0 in control for brain tumors, 5-7% vs 0 in control for heart tumors.
That does not sound ambiguous.

> The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.

That's still not much of a safety factor.

~~~
copperx
This is the first time I hear about heart cancer.

------
DonHopkins
Nothing to worry about: Congress will simply pass a law that makes it illegal
to get brain cancer from cell phones. Problem solved!

------
adamnemecek
Have you ever spent some time on your cell phone and then felt this "deep
warmth" in your head? I've felt the same warmth after having gone through a
"full body scanner".

I've mentioned this to a coworker before and he laughed at me. Then I heard
him be on the phone for like 30 minutes and during lunch he mentioned that his
head was feeling this weird warmth. I repeated my theory and asked him what
are the odds of his phone usage and the warmth being unrelated. I've never
seen him not use headphones when being on the phone since then.

~~~
RL_Quine
This is a nocebo effect. The two things you just described aren’t even in the
same ballpark of RF frequency. The brain doesn’t have any way of measuring
pain; let alone temperature. Brain surgery can be done with the patient awake
in desirable situations as a direct result of this.

~~~
jobigoud
> The brain doesn’t have any way of measuring pain

Wait, what about headaches?

~~~
akubera
Nerves around the brain, rather than the brain itself.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headache#Pathophysiology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headache#Pathophysiology)

