
Largest Animal Study on Cell Tower Radiation Confirms Cancer Link - Mononokay
http://www.sbwire.com/press-releases/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-link-953696.htm
======
thaumaturgy
This is a better study than previous ones, in that it used "environmental"
levels of radiation, rather than blasting subjects with an amount of radiation
equivalent to laying your head on top of a cell tower for 22 hours a day.

However: out of 817 individuals in the control group, 2 had benign tumors, 2
had malignant tumors, 1 had glial cell hyperplasia, and 2 had malignant glial
tumors. Out of 409 individuals in the highest-dosed group, 4 had benign
tumors, 0 had malignant tumors, 0 had glial cell hyperplasia, and 3 had
malignant glial tumors.

[https://imgur.com/a/VeEUb](https://imgur.com/a/VeEUb)

Rates are elevated, but given the differences in population sizes and the
relatively very small differences in rates involved, this study looks like a
very good candidate for the decline effect that's been plaguing similar
studies for a while now. (e.g. a regression to the mean; that the effect
numbers, being small, would disappear in subsequent studies.)

Any potential link between cell phones, or wifi, and cancer, still has the
fundamental problem that we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically
over the last 15 years in populations all over the world, and ... we haven't.
While there have been more and more findings on other causes for cancer (and
preventable mortality, like heart disease), glial cancers aren't increasing in
any manner suggestive of a link to ubiquitous environmental microwave
radiation.

~~~
colordrops
> we should have seen cancer rates rise dramatically

wouldn't have to be dramatic.

> and ... we haven't.

reference?

~~~
scott_s
_In the United States, the overall cancer death rate has declined since the
early 1990s. The most recent SEER Cancer Statistics Review, updated in
September 2016, shows that cancer death rates decreased by:

1.8% per year among men from 2004 to 2013

1.4% per year among women from 2004 to 2013

1.4% per year among children ages 0–19 from 2009 to 2013_

From [https://www.cancer.gov/about-
cancer/understanding/statistics](https://www.cancer.gov/about-
cancer/understanding/statistics). Yes, that's US only, but the US has built a
lot of cellular and wifi infrastructure during that time of cancer rate
decline.

~~~
acegopher
Technically, it's not death rates that matter, but occurrence rates. Death
rates could decline because of better treatment outcomes.

~~~
betterbeehome
This. Cancer death rates != Cancer occurrence rates

------
scott_s
I'm remaining skeptical. The NTP study they mention had methodological
problems. David Gorski of Science Based Medicine wrote about that study when
it made the rounds ([https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-
margina...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-a-rat-study-with-marginal-
results-does-not-prove-that-cell-phones-cause-cancer-no-matter-what-mother-
jones-and-consumer-reports-say/)):

 _What’s problematic about this study is that, even though there were 90 rats
in each group, that’s actually a small number to detect meaningful differences
in low frequency events. Here’s what I mean. The study reports increased
incidences of tumors in the brains and hearts of the male rats. ... Comparing
such low frequency events between groups can be very problematic, particularly
in the case low plausibility associations with multiple comparisons._

(I originally wrote something about not knowing the control group cancer
rates, but thaumaturgy has access to the paper and addressed that in a sibling
comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16659270](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16659270))

~~~
sethrin
It's a very low rate of increase, and while it may be statistically
significant given the right statistical massage, I don't think I would hang my
reputation on that p-value. This research group has come under fire for their
numbers before, both from Congress and I believe from NIH. This is just one of
hundreds of similar studies on environmental effects, and I don't want to say
that these people are in the profession of making mountains over molehills,
but I have not read anything about the authors or their institution which has
given me any confidence in their result.

~~~
haZard_OS
I wouldn't stake my reputation on ANY p-value. I don't want to derail the
conversation, but the p- value should have been discarded (more or less) years
ago.

------
mbreese
Here is Ars Technica's discussion of why they _aren 't_ covering this paper,
with a good critical discussion of how to look at these results.

[https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/a-critical-
analysis-...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/a-critical-analysis-of-
the-latest-cellphone-safety-scare/)

------
fencepost
The HN discussion of the NTP study discussed:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11784160](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11784160)

This one seems better in that it involves an order of magnitude more rats, but
it's still so small that just one rat difference makes a huge change in the
results.

I also wonder (more for the NTP study due to size) just how many comparable
studies have been done where the results were statistically insignificant (or
where the results would indicate that cell phone radiation reduced
cancer.....) that were then simply dismissed and never publicized because they
were uninteresting.

Edit: Also, wouldn't 5G be _more_ desirable because it's going to result in
much lower power emissions (both tower and device) much as the change from
AMPS to the various digital options drastically reduced power requirements?

------
ajarmst
The world's largest animal study on cell tower radiation is more likely one of
several cohort studies on humans (often with more than a million subjects)
which indicate that if there is a non-ionizing radiation link to brain cancer,
it is extremely tenuous and completely overshadowed by genetic factors and
other lifestyle factors. If cell tower radiation significantly increased the
likelihood of malignant cancers, we would know it by all the extra dead
people.

~~~
ajarmst
Useful graph :
[https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html](https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html)

------
anfilt
What mechanism do they think lead to this "increase". RF we use for
telecommunications does not have enough energy for the photo electric effect.
At worst it just heats you up. If RF causes cancer then my own body heat
should cause cancer...

Also cancers rates in humans have remained pretty much unchanged from my
understanding. So if there is an effect is it limited to rat
physiology/biology? Like DNA that is more effected by heat ect... Also if I
remember right rats have a body temperature of about 38 C or 100 F. So if it
is a thermal effect larger animals should have a better buffer.

------
yshklarov
This is an absolute joke. Take a look at the data. [https://sci-
hub.hk/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...](https://sci-
hub.hk/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367)

The sample size is far too low to draw any conclusions. Only a small handful
of rats in each group got tumors. The authors must know this! They got a
p-value <0.05 for just _one_ of the numbers, the male rats at 50 V/m, 1.4%
incidence of Schwannomas. The entire group (both female and male) was only at
1.2% and this was not considered statistically significant. By the way, the
one-tenth-dose group (5 V/m) had fully 1.5% incidence of Schwannomas.

And yet the conclusion claims "These experimental studies provide sufficient
evidence to call for the re-evaluation of IARC conclusions regarding the
carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans." I have no words.

------
pasbesoin
For people who emphasize the "non-ionizing" nature of such EMF. I remember,
back in organic chemistry back... oh, some decades ago, learning how non-
ionizing EMF could be used to influence reactions and reaction rates.

It may not break bonds, but it still causes them to flex, vibrate, etc. And
the resulting variations in configuration, and percent of time spent in such
variations, influences chemical reactions.

So, let's say you have a chemical reaction that has a certain chance of
producing a malign result or a factor in an eventual malign result.

Let's say your cell phone radiation heightens the level of that reaction.

You just increased your risk. Without directly ionizing anything.

Now, it's been a LONG time since I took chemistry. But while I've seldom seen
this aspect of EMF discussed WRT risk from cell phone radiation, I've never
seen it refuted.

And no one has a catalog of all the chemical reactions going on in the human
body. Including those induced by transient and variable exposure to external
agents. Chemicals absorbed through exposure. Drugs taken. Variable biomes.
Etc. Much less how EMF might influence them.

Just food for thought.

So, studies like this continue to be warranted. Despite the radiation tacitly
being "non-ionizing".

~~~
pharrington
You're talking about heat.

~~~
pasbesoin
Quickly:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4846869/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4846869/)

I ended up skimming part of it. Doesn't quite get to what I meant, in terms of
a clear explanation.

Chemical reaction rates depend in part upon the structure of the reagents (as
well, potentially that of a catalyst).

RF can stimulate, without breaking, the intra-molecular chemical bonds. This
in turn can produce alterations in the geometry of the molecule. This can, for
example, make the site of a potential bonding (a chemical reaction) more
accessible, physically and/or in terms of the field strengths of
electromagnetic fields of the bonding point bond and also adjacent bonds
capable of influencing the rate of reaction.

I found this harder to (quickly) google up than I expected. I guess my
chemistry professors were a bit "ahead of the curve"; the department did have
the reputation of being one of the top in the country for its size and the
type of institution in which it resided.

Another example of this: Discussing nascent concerns in the biochemical and
biology fields that rather than saturated fats, manufactured, partially-
hydrogenated fats were starting to look like the real culprits in pathologies
such as coronary artery disease. This was in 1985.

About 20 years later, I started reading articles in the popular press about
these "bad fats".

Anyway, its been too long for me to remember a specific chemical reaction as
an example, but the mechanism and explanation of same seemed pretty clear and
evident, way back then.

Not "heat" pushing the whole molecule around. Radiation causing e.g.
compressional and flexing vibration in the intra-molecular chemical bonds.
Sometimes rotation? Transition between configurations for molecules capable of
having more than one; corresponding influence on the time spent in each
configuration, as the molecule transitioned between them.

P.S. I'm outside academia, and so I face the ubiquitous "paywall" with respect
to most journal content and the like. And I'm NO expert in any of this. But
the people who were telling me this, were, to the extent I accurately remember
and represent what they said.

~~~
pharrington
That linked research is discussing the effects of _high energy_ (between 0 and
1000W, with written analyses of the 150W and 300W conditions) 2.45GHz
radiation on the catalyzing properties of specific chemical reactions (CuO-Cu-
ZSM-5, BaMnO3, and BaFeO3 catalysts with NO). I certainly was _presuming_ that
your vague memories from a standard class you took decades ago were about the
common, statistical changes in molecular geometry as a function of heat, and
it is possible that your class was discussing the bleeding edge of chemical
synthesis at the time ("Since the use of MWs for synthesis reactions first
appeared in 1986"). Regardless, the obvious test would be to measure the
_specific_ chemical effects on DNA under specific low energy microwave
frequencies.

~~~
pasbesoin
Yeah, ok, I may look like an idiot.

But I've read a lot of comments, over the years, to the effect that non-
ionizing radiation simply can't be a factor, because it doesn't remove
electrons and break chemical bonds.

And my own, very limited but -- for me, at least, elucidating -- educational
experience has been that that is not the case. Non-ionizing radiation can
affect chemical reactions.

So, if cell phone radiation is not risk factor in cancer, the argument needs
to go further than, "It's non-ionizing."

Your mention of the energy level / quantity of the non-ionizing radiation
involved in the link I managed to find, I find to be a pertinent difference.

Anyway, sorry for any annoyance.

P.S. I upvoted your response, by the way. I appreciate it, and I didn't mean
to come across as confrontational, if I did.

~~~
DoctorOetker
While I am highly skeptical of RF radiation as a significant cause of cancer,
I sympathize with your attitude.

Quite disingenious is the ionizing vs non-ionizing radiation dichotomy. I
guess this is historically rooted in the cancerous effects of gammma photons.

Consider the following dilemma: is visible red light ionizing radiation?

If not: how can the non-ionizing red light trigger chemical reactions? or are
the cones that sense red light strictly thermal sensors (i.e. bolometers)?

If yes: perhaps we should ban all visible light :)

I prefer this example because

* it is not a hypothetical radiation influence, i.e. most of us can see a red strawberry, in a sense this is a benign photo-chemical reaction, even though red light is typically not classified as 'ionizing', nobody denies cones can sense red light.

* beccause it illustrates that 'ionizing-ness' is not only dependent upon the characteristics of the radiation, but also on the characteristics of the subjected reagents/cellular structures/... which would be a monumental task to verify the harmlessness for all used radio frequencies and all subject reagents/cellullar structures/...

That said, we have bigger problems with other carcinogenous
things/behaviours/... so I think the antenna scares are relatively unfounded,
although we should keep an open mind for when a more serious effect is ever
reported, after all we are using parts of the spectrum that I suspect were
virtually completely absent as potential evolution pressures in the past.

------
markhahn
the numbers on this are much less impressive than the headline would suggest -
we're talking results that depend on singletons.

the treatment is also not really properly controlled, since they don't have a
condition which includes rats receiving the same SAR but in some, presumably
non-threatening frequency. that is, what if the effects are simply a result of
any rat that is RF heated? IMO, it's telling that although they tested a ramp
of increasing SAR, they can't claim proportionate incidence, or even
monotonically increasing with SAR.

------
acangiano
Fellow Canadians can find a map of cell towers here:
[http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html](http://www.ertyu.org/steven_nikkel/cancellsites.html)

------
pfarnsworth
What does this mean about Wifi? Can Wifi also cause these same issue,
especially if you are sleeping 1-2 rooms away from it?

~~~
lolc
Since Wifi uses other frequencies, the answer is maybe. We simply don't know
enough. It looks like the effect found in this study was too faint to draw any
conclusions.

The inverse square law says that a Wifi station two rooms away would expose
you to very little radiation. Unless of course you mean that your base station
is two rooms away but your cell phone connected to it is right next to your
head. Then you should move the base station closer so the phone can connect on
lower power levels. Or just turn off your phone.

------
ellyagg
You can't confirm something that has very little evidence. The prior for this
hypothesis is very low.

------
anotheryou
does anyone know the pattern they emit?

edit: found it, but sadly without scale. No Idea how dangerous the lobes would
be:
[http://www.emfguru.co.uk/kumar/kumar%20figure1.JPG](http://www.emfguru.co.uk/kumar/kumar%20figure1.JPG)

~~~
topspin
"does anyone know the pattern they emit?"

Naturally you can assume the vertical cross section of the radiation pattern
will focused below the horizon toward cell phone users. Gain is typically on
the order of 8-10 DBi. Power is usually in the low 10's of watts. Line-of-
sight to the main lobe of a 30W transmitter with 10 DBi of gain at 100 meters
you see an e-field of 0.95 V/m. Anything between you an that tower will drop
the e-field by orders of magnitude.

52-6F-62 writes: "We have two over top of us, and another two on the building
next door."

The towers above you are radiating away from you. You "see" radiation from the
building next door. At least that's the most likely arrangement.

~~~
anotheryou
I guess I'm in a side-lobe (~12m down, ~12m to the side), but hopefully the
roof is thick enough to dampen a lot (it's flat, so there is a bunch of steel
and concrete there).

------
robocat
I wonder if they just threw away data from three other control groups...

~~~
valuearb
i wonder if they never publicized other studies they ran that didn’t show the
effect, or actually showed the opposite effect.

------
dzaragozar
Mandatory xkcd about cell phones
[https://xkcd.com/925/](https://xkcd.com/925/)

------
yorwba
Original source of the press release: [http://www.sbwire.com/press-
releases/worlds-largest-animal-s...](http://www.sbwire.com/press-
releases/worlds-largest-animal-study-on-cell-tower-radiation-confirms-cancer-
link-953696.htm)

Please don't submit mere republications. (It's in the HN guidelines.)

~~~
web007
Or go straight to the source, vs the PR statement?

[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037)

