

"Physics shows that cell phones cannot cause cancer" - cwan
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-you-hear-me-now

======
carbocation
This is false. Hear me out.

I think that the notion of cell phones causing cancer is bunk for two reasons,
but I recognize that there is a third possibility. First, the reasons why I
think cell phones don't cause cancer:

(1) Physics. Microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, so cell phones don't
directly lead to strand breakage in your DNA or protein adducts.

(2) Epidemiology. The body of evidence, on balance, does not support the
notion that exposure to cell phones increases your risk for cancer. We are
getting hugely exposed to this radiation, and if it had an effect, you'd
strongly expect to see it. Perhaps we're a few decades away from being able to
appreciate any risk since brain tumors more commonly affect those later on in
life, but the epidemiology doesn't support the connection at this time.

There. I don't think that cell phones cause cancer, and I have given 2 reasons
why I believe that. However, I am willing to acknowledge that biology is
nothing if not interesting.

For example, imagine an enzyme that was designed to (a) receive microwave
radiation, putting it into a slightly different conformation, which then (b)
hydrolyzes ATP in order to (c) cut DNA. Why would this enzyme exist? Who
knows; _I don't think it does_ exist. But I am saying that physics cannot tell
us that "low energy thing X" cannot do "high energy thing Y." It only tells us
that the connection, if any, must be mediated by a third party. In other
words, sure, microwaves cannot cause strand breakage, but they could be part
of a signalling cascade that ultimately results in strand breakage.

Keep in mind that I don't believe in any of this garbage, but I do believe
that it's within the realm of possibility and therefore we actually do still
need epidemiology and molecular biology.

~~~
roc
Important fact 2: No study has ever shown a correlation between the rise in
cell phone usage and any rise in cancer rates.

If there were some unknown indirect method by which cell phone radiation
causes cancer, _where is all the cancer?_ Because no study has ever found it.

~~~
btilly
That fact is far, far weaker than the other. It turns out that many types of
cancer don't start to show up in the epidemiology for periods of 20 years or
so. Well known examples include lung cancer from smoking and various cancer
rates among those exposed to nuclear bombs.

Based on that if cellphones cause cancer, the odds are very low that we would
have noticed yet.

~~~
CamperBob
Cell phones have easily been in use for 20 years, and handheld radios have
been in use for far longer than that, at far higher power levels.

~~~
Groxx
I don't recall hearing how everyone had a handheld radio stuck to their head
for substantial amounts of time every day, as cell phones have today.

Radiation damage, if it occurs, is cumulative. I'd be willing to bet that the
heavier-use side of cell phone users have encountered _far_ more radiation
from their phones than a similar fraction of handheld radio users, even before
accounting for the difference in proximity (phones = inches at best, radios =
inches at minimum) which would give radiation from radios exponentially less
radiation than they emit compared to phones.

(not that I'm claiming they _do_ cause cancer. Merely that the handheld radio
side of the argument doesn't really work)

~~~
CamperBob
_Radiation damage, if it occurs, is cumulative._

"I don't know what effect I'm talking about, exactly, but I'm sure it's
cumulative."

~~~
Groxx
I can tell you've typed, but all I'm seeing is idiocy and an attempted insult
thinly disguised as snark.

Radiation damage, ie anything not from excess _energy_ in the area causing
injury like burns, but referring to _genetic_ damage, is rather obviously
cumulative if you consider it for more time than it took you to type that out.

Genetic damage cannot be repaired. At best, the offending cell is killed. At
worst, it divides and spreads its damaged code, sometimes becoming cancerous.

Cancers frequently come from mutations. Radiation damage causes random
mutations. Put 1 and 1 together, and you get an increased risk of cancers
based _exclusively_ off the _sum total_ of radiation received, ignoring any
time dimension.

Look at _any_ studies looking for "safe radiation doses", or consider why
people _don't_ snuggle up to radium-glowing blankets every night, or take a
peek at why revigators are banned, or why you don't want radon in your
basement; you'll see the same information pop up every time. Radiation is
cumulative. Small amounts for a long time are just as dangerous as large
amounts for a short time, except they don't cause burns.

~~~
CamperBob
Yeah. Because it's not as if there are different kinds of radiation, or
anything.

~~~
Groxx
And the dangers of these multiple kinds of radiation are...?

Damage to cells and damage to DNA. One is repaired.

Modifying protein structures results in one of the above, as does causing
higher energy molecular interactions potentially causing abnormal chemicals
for a particular area. We've now covered _every effect radiation can have on
your body_. One is guaranteed permanent and thus cumulative. One is not, and
is only dangerous in higher degrees, and by the time _that_ gets high enough
to kill you, you've suffered massive genetic damage and will probably die
anyway from cancers.

All this of course is ignoring the possibility of radiation creating prions.
I've heard of no studies which have found this to be the case, so I don't
include it. And they cause cellular or genetic damage as well, so they're
_still_ accounted for, just more remotely.

The different kinds of radiation effectively just determine how _much_ damage
(energy of the particle / wave) and how far they penetrate. ie, alpha
particles typically only penetrate up to a few centimeters, but have
_massively_ more energy, while gamma rays can easily pass through you
entirely, with beta particles roughly in between.

------
1053r
It's disingenuous of the author to put "QED" on the end of his article as if
this was deductively proven in a mathematical proof. He did make a VERY strong
case for cell phones not causing cancer through inducing transcription errors
or DNA breakage from ionizing radiation. But he didn't even touch on other
possible mechanisms for causing cancer, such as spot heating.

Personally, I would guess that if spot heating caused cancer, then the human
race would have gone extinct when we discovered fire, but that is neither here
nor there. Using terms like "QED" in this context just adds fuel to the fire
of the "evolution is just a theory" whackos.

~~~
sz
Quod erat demonstrandum does not mean "and thus I have proven beyond all
shadow of a doubt that I am right"; it means, roughly, "that which was to be
demonstrated". The usage of QED is correct here.

~~~
andrewljohnson
QED is commonly understood to mean "the theorem is proved," and it is used in
rigorous mathematical proofs that leave no doubt of their meaning.

From wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.>): The phrase is
traditionally placed in its abbreviated form at the end of a mathematical
proof or philosophical argument when that which was specified in the
enunciation, and in the setting-out, has been exactly restated as the
conclusion of the demonstration.

I agree with the parent comment that this rhetorical flourish is misleading,
and I agree it gives the non-scientific set a hook to riff on.

------
karzeem
Does this kind of reductionism pass for science journalism? I have no idea if
cell phones cause cancer. But if I have a model of carcinogenesis and cell
phones happen not to fit the model, that's nothing like proof that they
_cannot_ cause cancer.

Knives are proven to cause stab wounds. A sharpened stick is not a knife. That
is not proof that sharpened sticks cannot cause stab wounds.

Edit: apparently the meaning of what I've written varies depending on what you
think my motives are. That means I've been unclear. I'm not advocating the
precautionary principle. Kind of the opposite, actually. You cannot prove a
negative, which means that it is unscientific to use a model (especially one
as poorly understood as the one for carcinogenesis) to "prove" that something
_cannot_ happen.

~~~
geuis
Did you even read the article? What you just said is exactly the initial
complaint the author is making about the misapplication of the precautionary
principle.

"I have no idea if <pigs can fly>. But if I have a model of <flight in
biological animals> and <pigs> happen not to fit the model, that's nothing
like proof that they _cannot_ <fly>.

<Birds> are proven to <be biological animals capable of flight>. A <pig> is
not a <bird>. That is not proof that <pigs> cannot <be biological animals
capable of flight>."

Does this make absolutely _any_ sense to you?

~~~
karzeem
I've only had one cup of tea today, so maybe I wrote the opposite of what I
think I wrote, but it might also be that your pseudoscientist detector is
catching false positives today.

I'm not asserting that cell phones cause cancer, and I'm not asserting that
the precautionary principle is wise to apply here. The author writes that the
model of carcinogenesis he's selected predicts that cell phones will not cause
cancer. He asserts that this is proof that cell phones cannot cause cancer.
I'm taking issue with his confidence in making that assertion.

------
limmeau
The commenters agree mainly on one thing: that the article is poorly
researched because it only deals with cancer by direct ionization of DNA.

~~~
edge17
I'm not terribly literate in this field, so I'm curious what other ways you're
referring to?

I was taught that cancer's caused by transcription errors, which tend to
increase with direct ionization of DNA.

~~~
powrtoch
I think the point was that the article _assumes_ that the only thing that can
cause transcription errors is ionization. This assumption is known to be
false, since viruses can also mess with DNA transcription.

Obviously no one is suggesting that cell phones create viruses, but the point
is that ruling out one avenue does not rule out the destination.

~~~
sliverstorm
> Obviously no one is suggesting that cell phones create viruses

It sure would be some kind of dystopian cracker's paradise though- imagine
being able to use computer viruses to make _people_ viruses that jump from
their computers to living beings!

~~~
bch
Costa Nostra. Who ordered a large with everything?

------
roc
Good luck with that; Bob Park has been beating that drum for decades.

As in a disconcerting number of other areas of American life: objective facts
don't seem to have any bearing on the discussion.

------
VBprogrammer
I have carried a mobile phone practically every day since I was 18. If mobile
/ cell phones do cause cancer I'm not exactly sure what I could do about it.
Every smoker in the world knows smoking is strongly linked with cancer, but
they still do it.

I'd probably be the first in line for the low tar...err...radiation iPhone.

------
melloajello
Definitely read the comments of this one. There is a lot more evidence on this
subject than it presented in the article.

~~~
justsee
Yes, it's a stellar example of comments being far more insightful than the
actual article.

~~~
CamperBob
Not really. It looks like a brigade of tinfoil-hatters from a pseudo-journal
called "Microwave News" took early and decisive control of the discussion.

------
nodata
and what does biology say? and science?

------
Adam503
All those heroic 9/11 firefighters contracting cancer when the US Federal
Government said the air at ground zero was supposedly"safe."

There's been too many lies from the US Government claiming some situation,
like eating Gulf of Mexico shrimp now, was supposedly safe when everyone knew
better.

