

Warning - cell phones and WIFI - not so safe - onoj
http://www.gq.com/cars-gear/gear-and-gadgets/201002/warning-cell-phone-radiation?currentPage=1

======
mmastrac
Not too sure about this one. A 30-year study in Scandinavia showed no
correlation:

[http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/no-tumour-link-
to...](http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/no-tumour-link-to-mobile-
phones-says-study-20091204-kaqs.html)

"Deltour's team analysed annual incidence rates of two types of brain tumour
-- glioma and meningioma -- among adults aged 20 to 79 from Denmark, Finland,
Norway, and Sweden from 1974 to 2003. These countries all have good cancer
registries that keep a tally of known cancer cases.

...

"It is possible, Deltour's team wrote, that it takes longer than 10 years for
tumours caused by mobile phones to turn up, that the tumours are too rare in
this group to show a useful trend, or that there are trends but in subgroups
too small to be measured in the study.

"It is just as possible that mobile phones do not cause brain tumours, they
added.

------
onoj
The article explains the physical mechanism - or at least the area in which it
applies:

At the vanguard of a new field of study that came to be known as
bioelectromagnetics, he found what appeared to be grave nonthermal effects
from microwave frequencies—the part of the spectrum that belongs not just to
radar signals and microwave ovens but also, in the past fifteen years, to cell
phones. (The only honest way to think of our cell phones is that they are
tiny, low-power microwave ovens, without walls, that we hold against the sides
of our heads.) Frey tested microwave radiation on frogs and other lab animals,
targeting the eyes, the heart, and the brain, and in each case he found
troubling results. In one study, he triggered heart arrhythmias. Then, using
the right modulations of the frequency, he even stopped frog hearts with
microwaves—stopped the hearts dead.

also how modulated microwaves assit in breaching the blood - brain barrier

In a study published in 1975 in the Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, Frey reported that microwaves pulsed at certain modulations could
induce "leakage" in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain.
Breaching the blood-brain barrier is a serious matter: It means the brain's
environment, which needs to be extremely stable for nerve cells to function
properly, can be perturbed in all kinds of dangerous ways. Frey's method was
rather simple: He injected a fluorescent dye into the circulatory system of
white rats, then swept the ­microwave frequencies across their bodies. In a
matter of minutes, the dye had leached into the confines of the rats' brains.

------
noonespecial
I know that people get tired of me ruining good "think of the children"
debates with this question but here goes anyway:

What if the worst is true? What if one in every 100,000 people who uses a
cellphone extensively during a lifetime is killed horribly by it?

Would you stop using yours? If so, why do you still ride in cars? I once saw
an activist against the EM fields from power lines smoke 5 cigarettes while
pontificating about the illnesses the lines in his yard might cause.

It all comes down to statistics and rationality. It seems humanity has chosen
a technological path of growth instead of being content with 40 year lives of
subsistence farming. We're gonna need those radio whatsits to get off this
rock and preserve the species. Hopefully if there is something to weak EM /
cancer thing, we'll evolve immunity to it before we get into space and get
into the real radiation. (Or perhaps, advance to the "oops, you've got a DNA
error, let me fix that for you" stage.)

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not advocating head in the sand denialism of any
possible ill effects, I'm just advocating rational, proportional responses to
the possible danger verses the more common, knee-jerk "it might cause _cancer_
ban them _all_!" responses.

------
GiraffeNecktie
There is vastly more radiation from sunlight than from using a cellphone. But
in any case, I find that since I started wearing a tinfoil hat I'm much less
affected by cellphone radiation.

~~~
kingkawn
Yes but we evolved to live with the sun's radiation.

~~~
lena
So how do you explain skin cancer?

~~~
kingkawn
There are multiple environmental cancers that we can acquire, in addition to
the numerous other ways that life can get you if things get out of balance.
The point is that our adaptive systems to overexposure to sun, such as sunburn
and peeling, are well developed. Our adaptive system to avoiding radiation
exposure to the ear and brain, not so much.

------
onoj
Worse - they found that the radiation CAN cause DNA damage.

The potential complications don't end there. In the mid-1990s, a biophysicist
at the University of Washington named Henry Lai began to make profound
discoveries about the effects of such frequencies not only on the blood-brain
barrier but also on the actual structure of rat DNA. Lai found that modulated
EM radiation could cause breaks in DNA strands—breaks that could then lead to
genetic damage and mutations that would be passed on for generations. What
surprised Lai was that the damage was accomplished in a single two-hour
exposure.

In essence - even though the energy is not sufficient to ionize it is
impacting the function of cells.

(this is why I posted the article)

~~~
rdtsc
It is interesting the approach taken in US vs Europe. Europe is taking more of
precautionary approach, they are at least doing more research, they seem more
skeptical. In US worrying about cellphone radiation is considered
"conspiratorial" for some reason. Are these flak groups sponsored by large
wireless telecom carriers?

I observed the same thing in regard to food and additives. FDA seems to need
strong irrefutable proof of toxicity before they would ban an additive,
Europeans seem to take more of a precautionary approach -- if the additive is
thought to be harmful, they will be banned. Is it just me or have others
noticed the same?

~~~
sailormoon
* In US worrying about cellphone radiation is considered "conspiratorial" for some reason.*

Indeed, as demonstrated by the majority of responses to this article.
Surprising, at least to me.

~~~
CamperBob
It shouldn't be surprising if you understand a bit of basic logic. No one can
prove a negative, yet this is exactly what the so-called "precautionary
principle" demands of us.

I can't prove that cell phone radiation is always harmless to all respects of
human health under all conditions, and you can't prove that there's not an
invisible teapot in orbit around Neptune. Instead, the burden of proof must
lie with the party making the positive assertion.

It would be very obvious by now if handheld radio transceivers caused cancer.
The physics say it won't happen, and so does the epidemiology. Case closed for
now, worry about something else.

~~~
rdtsc
What is lacking is long term studies. That is essentially what the doctor in
the article notices.

The same is true for food additives. How many companies do you think conduct
20 year long studies on chemicals that mimic hormones? Pumping rabbits and
mice with massive dosages might not be the same as a long term exposure to
very small doses.

~~~
CamperBob
We're all "long term studies." Where's the brain-cancer epidemic? People who
smoke are more likely to get lung cancer, an otherwise rare disease. So if
_everybody_ started smoking, we'd see a large spike in lung-cancer cases.
However, we have _not_ seen a large spike in brain-cancer cases across all
populations who started using cell phones en masse in the 1990s.

So exactly what problem is being addressed here, besides poor high-school
physics education?

------
rms
I'll take my chances.

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-cell-...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-cell-
phones-alzheimers-disease-mice.html)

------
rwhitman
The problem with these stories regarding health risks from tech is that we
WANT them to not be true. I read it and say "bah" but in the back of my head
it really does worry me.

The problem is elimination of cell phones & wifi would be such an
inconvenience in our lifestyles... I mean I rely on both so extensively that
even simply cutting back on cell phone use be a huge problem. Heck I work in a
building with no less than 17 different wifi networks.

Even if the research is inconvenient on an individual or institutional level I
just hope there is more done and more public interest so that at least
engineers will focus a little more on developing lifestyle tech that is safer.
I mean don't we have enough risks from various environmental pollution
already? Wouldn't it make sense to put pressure on changing the things that
can be changed? Even if its paranoid would it kill people to care about it a
bit more?

</rant>

------
azgolfer
Microwave radiation is too low energy to cause DNA mutation, so it can't be a
direct cause of cancer. Besides, wouldn't we see ear cancer more than brain
cancer ?

------
DenisM
These guys are up there with anti-vaccination crowd.

------
jdietrich
I don't know about the rest of you, but I take all my health advice from
fashion magazines. I shall discard my cellphone immediately.

------
ThinkWriteMute
I Wardrive extensively. If this is true (and I don't think it is) then I'm too
fucked to care.

------
chanux
Some say no. Some say yes. One found out the reason.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahinda_Pathegama#Work>

Anyway I can't find his research paper.

------
pasbesoin
Non-ionizing radiation does nonetheless affect molecular bonds. It adds energy
to them, placing them in more energetic states of vibration, mechanical
energy. This is turn influences the chemical reactions they undergo. It could
be a catalyst for adverse chemical reactions that lead to pathologies.

(Perhaps in combination with other "man-made" agents; does it perhaps help the
odd chlorinated, fluourinate, bromated, or other carcinogen "get a grip" on a
a strand of DNA?)

Specific effects depend upon the bonds and the RF frequencies. And affects
accumulate in a statistically described fashion; it may take years to for a
member of a population to accumulate a significant probability of experiencing
an adverse affect.

I haven't had a chemistry class in years (aka I'm no expert). But what I did
learn was enough that I don't rule out the possibility of effects induced by
non-ionizing radiation. "Non-ionizing" <> no effect whatsoever.

------
CamperBob
Demonstrate a physical mechanism for this, and there's at least one, probably
two Nobel Prizes in your future.

As for me and my house, we will follow E = hv.

~~~
rdtsc
You might find this interesting:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_h...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation_and_health)

Basically, there are some studies that indicate that prolonged exposure to EM
radiation has carcinogenic effects. Which is what the article is about. It is
not understood, but I can see why many feel worried. People tend not to like
being guinea pigs.

It seems, they be the ones demonstrating beyond any doubt that EM radiation is
perfectly safe? Which is why more studies are need, especially long term.

~~~
CamperBob
None of those experiments have proven reproducible.

Standing under a light bulb exposes you to EM radiation that's orders of
magnitude more energetic than anything you will get from any type of radio
transmitter.

