
Cancer and mobile phones - jrwan
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/14/mobile-phones-cancer-inconvenient-truths
======
jjoonathan
> NTP scientists had exposed thousands of rats and mice ... to doses of
> radiation equivalent to an average mobile user’s lifetime exposure.

Misleading. From the study:

> Rats were exposed to ... whole-body SAR exposures of 0, 1.5, 3, or 6 W/kg

The _lowest_ exposure they tested was equivalent to an average person (80kg in
North America, evidently) standing right in front of the antenna of a 120W
transmitter 24/7.

~~~
st26
Well, they had to jack it up because the experiment (and the rats) would not
go on for seventy years. And if the mechanism of action is anything like other
types of radiation, risk is proportional to total lifetime exposure, not peak
exposure.

~~~
joecool1029
Nah, jacking it up has its own new set of problems. Cellphone radiation isn't
ionizing radiation, at most you're ever so slightly heating cells around it.
By increasing the intensity you might be literally baking and killing cells in
the process (think the difference between drinking a scalding beverage and
burning the shit out of your mouth vs. letting it cool and not being injured
or having the cells get killed off).

Now take my hot beverage example and repeat it a bunch of times. I would bet
that cancer incidence would increase in the scalding group. (as you're
destroying epithelial cells and forcing them to regenerate... and cancer is
really biological lotto).

To top all the above off. With the exception of the migration from GSM to
WCDMA technology (GSM pulsed the radio), cell phone radio output power has
actually been on the decline due to smaller cells sizes being used in cities.
It's nothing like using an analog cellphone in the 80's was in terms of
output.

~~~
incongruity
To your last point - _individual_ radio power has declined but I’d suspect
that the total exposure has gone up because 1)Device density is far greater
and 2)Time spent transmitting is longer per device because we use more data
now than in years past.

As to whether that causes cancer, I’m not an expert... I guess the ultimate
measure will be actual cancer incidence rates but by that point, isn’t it
arguably too late for many of us?

~~~
zamfi
Power drops off with distance squared. Device density increases background
levels, but this study wasn’t looking at background levels; time spent
transmitting per device is up but the location of that transmission is no
longer right up against your head, just your hands.

I’d love to see a study about background EM exposure in the various EM
spectrum bands that are now in continuous use in urban environments. But it
would be very hard to run such a study!

~~~
joecool1029
>I’d love to see a study about background EM exposure in the various EM
spectrum bands that are now in continuous use in urban environments. But it
would be very hard to run such a study!

While that study would be tricky, I can think of devising a study in which
rural cellphone users are compared to urban ones. You'd have to control for
things like wifi calling and outliers with a tower next to their house but in
theory background EM from base towers will be lower in the rural area, while
at the same time output power from the mobile will be higher (because further
from base station).

Honestly though, nothing is going to compare to the EM radiation of the Sun.
It's like asking if hearing whispering will cause hearing damage while someone
is screaming next to you. So, yeah I guess... hard to control. (this is why I
only bring up user equipment exposure since it's placed inches from the skin,
I think it's silly to worry about cancer from base stations)

------
pera
The most interesting part in my opinion is the linked meta-study from 2006
which had the following conclusion:

> _Forty (68%) studies reported one or more statistically significant results
> (p < 0.05) indicating an effect of the exposure (Table 2). Studies funded
> exclusively by industry reported on the largest number of outcomes but were
> less likely to report statistically significant results_ [...]

> _Our findings add to the existing evidence that single-source sponsorship is
> associated with outcomes that favor the sponsors’ products_

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1797826/)

This may be a fact that scientist are well aware of, but I would say it's not
something that the general population knows; for most people there is this
fantasy where the "scientific community" reaches consensus almost
spontaneously and that's the end of the story, we got a new universal law.

If only the media said "some new analysis indicates that there could be a
relation between this and that" instead of the usual "Science says"...

~~~
gus_massa
The problem with a fixed criteria of p < 0.05 for statistically significant
results is that it is only useful if each experiment measures only one thing
and all the studies are published.

I remember an study of a few year ago where they had

* rats and mice -> x2 * male/female/both -> x2 (or x3) * three level of radiation -> x3 * two or three types of cancer -> x2 (or x3)

So the report has at least 2x2x3x2=24 results. There is a high probability
that by chance one of them gets a p<0.05.

Also, studies with a positive result have a higher chance of been published,
because the researchers are not interested in publishing boring studies
without a positive result so they don't write it, and the journals are not
interested in publishing boring studies without a positive result so they
don't approve it. (And I'm ignoring intentional fraud and p hacking ...)

Anyway, perhaps the researchers sponsored by the telephone
companies/manufacters just publish all their studies and the independent
researches publish only the interesting studies. This is why in certain areas
it is mandatory to register the experiments before they start, to ensure
(reduce) there is no publication bias.

In particle physics it's too easy to do experiments, filtering and analysis,
so they use a criteria of 5 sigmas to call it a discovery. This is roughly
p<0.0000003, because if they use p<0.05 you would get every month a
announcement of a new particle and a few month later the retraction.

For experiments with mice/rats it's impossible to ask for p<0.0000003 because
you will need trillions of rats, but remember that p<0.05 is just an arbitrary
threshold.

------
tzs
I'd like to see some studies that look at combining mobile phone radiation
with things that are definitely known to cause cancer.

I'm curious about the possibility that mobile phone radiation does not cause
cancer, but its presence can increase the effectiveness of other things the
can cause cancer.

There are some researchers who think that the mechanism cells use to detect
and repair damage to DNA finds the damage by looking for places along the DNA
where there are unexpected changes in electrical conductivity such as due to
broken bonds. There has been speculation that passing non-ionization
electromagnetic radiation could interfere with that mechanism, causing it to
overlook damaged DNA that it would have otherwise found and repaired.

Note that if it does indeed have some kind of "suppress preventing cancer"
effect, then the intensity of the radiation might not matter much as long as
it is above some threshold. What might matter most is the length of continuous
exposure, and the time between intervals of exposure. As long as the times of
little or no exposure are frequent enough and long enough that the cells will
be able to do their find and repair operations before a cell on its way to
cancer has time to start reproducing, you should be fine.

This would differ quite a bit from the usual radiation testing situation,
where all that matters is total exposure, so you can simulate long term low
level exposure by short term, higher level exposure.

It could turn out, say, that 100 short calls spread throughout the day are
almost completely safe, even on an old high power phone, but a couple of long
conversations greatly increase the risks that if something else tries to give
you cancer during that time it will succeed.

This would probably be pretty hard to conduct a study on.

~~~
xevb3k
> detect and repair damage to DNA finds the damage by looking for places along
> the DNA where there are unexpected changes in electrical conductivity such
> as due to broken bonds.

Could you link to the research because this makes very little sense to me. DNA
doesn’t conduct electricity in any meaningful way (base resistance >=
Teraohms).

Maybe charge distribution or something?

~~~
tzs
I was using "electrical conductivity" where much of the research actually says
"charge transport". An example [1].

[1]
[https://www.its.caltech.edu/~jkbgrp/Research.htm](https://www.its.caltech.edu/~jkbgrp/Research.htm)

------
joecool1029
Back to beating a dead horse with the rats in a microwave oven study.

How about a large scale human study performed over 30 years? [http://sci-
hub.mu/10.1016/j.canep.2016.04.010](http://sci-
hub.mu/10.1016/j.canep.2016.04.010)

~~~
api
That doesn't provide a click bait headline.

------
PakG1
_Lack of definitive proof that a technology is harmful does not mean the
technology is safe, yet the wireless industry has succeeded in selling this
logical fallacy to the world. The upshot is that, over the past 30 years,
billions of people around the world have been subjected to a public-health
experiment: use a mobile phone today, find out later if it causes genetic
damage or cancer._

I've always said this, and I know it's putting the cart before the horse in
terms of scientific investigation, and I know that in the worst case, I sound
like a tin foil hat. And I use a mobile phone regularly myself. But I've
always always wondered. The article doesn't say anything definitive in either
direction, so I still am left to wonder.

~~~
naasking
> The upshot is that, over the past 30 years, billions of people around the
> world have been subjected to a public-health experiment

They say this like it's somehow unique to cell phones. Really, how does this
differ from _any_ technological advancement? Didn't the invention of cars,
wired phones, the printing press, the transistor, etc. also start distributing
without any scientific analysis of the possible dangers to health?

~~~
adamsea
Those are weird examples (asbestos and lead in paint/gasoline might be better
ones) for this particular topic, but, no?

Again using asbestos and lead in various products as examples, there are real
dangers to public health in new products/technologies, and while I don't want
to see the technological progress we've made stopped I do want to see more
effort made to anticipate, mitigate, and lessen the potential harm caused by
new technologies (and the irresponsible behavior of many of the companies
pushing them).

~~~
naasking
I don't see why they're weird examples. Every innovation may _or may not_
cause health problems. Clearly cars do cause health problems, transistors
largely do not unless you take a whole carbon footprint into account as well.
How could you possibly know either outcome ahead of time?

The point is that we don't know the health consequences beforehand, and
anticipating them is not easy. You say you want more of an effort made in this
regard, but do you actually know how much effort is currently made towards
this end?

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
Well, maybe even too much effort:

> Our findings add to the existing evidence that single-source sponsorship is
> associated with outcomes that favor the sponsors’ products

------
mmaunder
"NTP scientists had exposed thousands of rats and mice (whose biological
similarities to humans make them useful indicators of human health risks) to
doses of radiation equivalent to an average mobile user’s lifetime exposure."

Assuming we're discussing RF "radiation", how did they do this? By cranking up
the RF output power? I'm sure if someone exposed me to a few thousand watts of
1ghz RF pointed directly at me, the tissue heating effect alone would cause a
huge range of issues. That is how a microwave heats food.

Seems a bit like saying that baths are deadly because scalding hot water will
kill you.

~~~
zamfi
I like the sunlight analogy myself.

“We exposed broiler chickens (whose biological properties make them useful
treatments of human hunger) to doses of heat and infrared radiation equivalent
to an average human’s lifetime exposure.”

“They turned out crispy and delicious.”

------
binarynate
I was diagnosed with testicular cancer earlier this year and am curious about
whether keeping my cell phone in my front pocket on that side contributed to
it. I was originally dismissive about this possibility, however I found it odd
that my urology center said they've seen a significant increase in the number
of young patients with testicular cancer over the past seven months. It's
likely that they're just starting to receive more patients overall, but I'm
curious if there could be another factor, like late-model cell phone use (and
specifically, perhaps, the iPhone X). I'm curious if anyone else is in a
similar situation or has heard of anything like this.

------
pmoriarty
Are bluetooth headphones and headsets any safer? Have there been any studies
on those?

~~~
hrnnnnnn
It seems like Bluetooth is safe, and using a phone with a headset might be the
safest combination.

[https://youtu.be/AnOm_nTupGg](https://youtu.be/AnOm_nTupGg)

~~~
alangpierce
The video says that bluetooth operates at higher frequency but about 1000x
lower power, which makes a lot of sense. Having a small device near your head
broadcast a message a few feet seems much lower risk than having to broadcast
all the way to the nearest cell phone tower.

Another thought: my phone and provider (Pixel 2, Google Fi) will automatically
use WiFi for calls when available. I wonder if that mode is significantly
lower radiation for the same reason (shorter distance to cover, so the signal
doesn't need to be as strong).

------
Nokinside
>We dismiss claims about mobiles being bad for our health – but is that
because studies showing a link to cancer have been cast into doubt by the
industry?

No. Industry probably casts doubt even when it's undeserved, but there is no
reason to believe claims that mobile phone radiation causes cancer.

Even if the evidence provided would prove true, it would not matter. Reported
effect sizes are so small it would not be reason to change behavior.

Microwave radiation has multiple potential ways it can change biological
function, not just thermal effects. But things like EM radiation as calcium-
channel antagonist works only with cells in vitro. If you are Multicellular
organism with skin, there is no evidence that you are in any danger.

------
Cieplak
_Microwave effects on plasmid DNA_ (1987)

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3575652/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3575652/)

Probably not significant if you have a good immune system, which is constantly
cleaning out mutated cells. Sunlight, which is good for you, absolutely does
cause cancer, but you don’t see conspiratorial articles about UV radiation.

The part about 5G was interesting though. I wonder if it could be weaponised,
say by compromising a base station and beam forming a signal at full power
(plus harmonics) at a target in possession of a cellphone.

------
rjplatte
I don't know where the article is off the top of my head, but there was a
competent-looking study showing that certain non-ionizing radiation can open
the blood-brain barrier, which may be relevant to these results.

------
madengr
I suppose the good thing is the phone is mostly in people’s hands now as
opposed to their ear. Has phone use declined now due to texting? I know my 12
YO uses FaceTime with her friends instead of a traditional phone.

~~~
extrapickles
It would move the location to a better spot if mobile phones caused cancer. I
haven’t see any solid data on voice usage, but from a few poor quality
articles its down at least 10-25% over the last decade.

The main problem with these studies is that they are “rats in a microwave
oven”, so they are subject to the same amount of RF as if you were sleeping in
a pile of cellphones transmitting constantly (not recommended). They never
bother exposing some of the rats to 1 cellphones worth of power.

There have been large multiple decade studies done of cellphone users that
indicate cancer is not an issue (see elsewhere in this thread for a link).

------
mtgx
Remember when the industry used to say smoking was healthy, and even quoting
doctors saying so?

I wonder if in 30 years we'll all be suing the industry over this (when it's
too late for many of us).

------
sireat
Have there been any studies on 1980s cell phone use ('the brick phone') which
had much higher power output?

Anecdotally you heard of 1980s stock brokers getting brain cancer but were
there any statistically valid studies done on this?

------
dwaltrip
Yet another example of how the world is hard...

I'm not sure what to make of this. I thought there wasn't any good evidence of
radiation from mobile phones being harfmul.

~~~
bittercynic
There still isn't any good evidence. Sometimes seems like the hardest thing
about the world right now is to avoid getting scared/depressed by excessive
exposure to reports like this one.

~~~
dwaltrip
Yeah.. reading all the comments that appeared after I wrote mine, it looks
like I don't need to worry too much. That is, assuming the HN hivemind is on
the right track -- which, for something like this, I think is generally the
case.

------
tehduder9
So no "truth" at all? Alright.

------
craftyguy
You know what can provide several watts/m^2 of MUCH higher frequency radiation
(both ionizing and not), and kills far more people per year? THE SUN.

------
musage
Ugh.

> There is a catch, though: the Internet of Things will require augmenting
> today’s 4G technology with 5G technology, thus “massively increasing” the
> general population’s exposure to radiation, according to a petition signed
> by 236 scientists worldwide who have published more than 2,000 peer-reviewed
> studies and represent “a significant portion of the credentialled scientists
> in the radiation research field”, according to Joel Moskowitz, the director
> of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of
> California, Berkeley, who helped circulate the petition. Nevertheless, like
> mobiles, 5G technology is on the verge of being introduced without pre-
> market safety testing.

[https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuelFrNWRQcThNV0U...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B14R6QNkmaXuelFrNWRQcThNV0U/view)

Just out of curiosity, how would one go about locating the direction of 5G
antennas? At the very least, I'd gleefully shit-talk anyone involved I come
across. Just out of principle. It doesn't even matter how safe it turns out to
be -- just how needy and dumb people are adopting anything thrown into their
through, how reckless not just with their own lives, but with their effects on
others and the environment, calls for some serious fucking wrath. And this is
as good a starting point as any.

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
There is no way 5G is blocked, too much money has been invested in it.

------
csuld2012223
Even when smoking is conclusively proved to cause cancer and grotesque
pictures of what your lungs will look like are displayed on the pack, people
still ignore it and just smoke anyway. I think this effect is partly why
people ignore or try and dismiss any possible evidence that this technology
could indeed be causing harm. The NTP study has taken a lot of flak in the
name of 'discerning' science,but as far as I can see none of it is deserved.
(Original authors have responded thoroughly - so much so that they have done
video presentation- on youtube)

