Cellphone cancer nonsense

[DrPizza]

I just saw the divining rod thread revived again - annoying that people believe in bullcrap. And a few minutes ago, I saw an article written for presumably high school students saying that maybe cell phones can cause cancer. While I'd be happy if people suddenly were in fear of holding their cell phones in front of themselves and texting 22 out of 24 hours of the day, and finally put the things down. But, I prefer a little more honesty. As such, I penned this in response to the article. PLEASE poke holes in my explanation or point out errors so that I can improve the explanation.

People think Einstein won the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity. That's not true. He won the Nobel Prize for his work on the photoelectric effect. Essentially, Einstein won the Nobel Prize for proving over 100 years ago, before anyone even conceived of cell phones, that cell phones can NOT cause cancer. The "radiation" from cell phones is non-ionizing. For anyone scared by the term "radiation" - and that scary term IS used by people trying to promote this nonsense - radiation in this case refers to electromagnetic radiation.

There are many forms of "light." What we refer to as visible light is a narrow subset out of all the frequencies of electromagnetic radiation. The only difference between the forms of light is their frequencies. You may have heard of ultraviolet light. This is not visible light to humans, though for all practical purposes, you might refer to it as a different "color" of light. In fact, some animals (birds, fish, some mammals) can actually see some frequencies of ultraviolet light, just as your eyes are able to detect things that are red. So, you can think of yourself as "color blind" to ultraviolet light, though our definition of color-blind is generally limited to colors in what to humans is the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. If you've ever seen a rainbow of colors, and there's no color just past purple, that's where ultraviolet lies. In fact, using special detectors just past where we see the colors is how ultraviolet light was first discovered. And at the other end of the visible spectrum, a different type of detector discovered infrared light. Again, infrared light is invisible to humans, but some animals (reptiles) can "see" infrared light. And, humans have invented devices so they can shift the frequencies of infrared light to frequencies we can see, and now you have infrared cameras or "night vision" cameras, which use infrared light to allow us to see things when there's no visible (to us) light.

Now, over the past 100 years, scientists have discovered more and more "colors" of light - that is, we have given names to parts of the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes can't see, but which we can build detectors to "see" for us. Together, all these "colors" form the electromagnetic spectrum. At one end, gamma rays, x rays, ultraviolet light, then your familiar ROY G BIV (though, backwards - violet is next to ultraviolet, then indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange, red; then infrared, microwaves, and radio waves.

Now, you may know that ultraviolet light is bad for you - it's the component of light from the sun that reaches the earth and damages your skin - it is the component that leads to sun burns and can lead to skin cancer. Ultraviolet light is higher frequency light than visible light. And scientists have known for a long time that the higher the frequency, the more damaging it is. You can spread a sunblock lotion on your skin and stop ultraviolet light from reaching your skin and damaging it. X-rays have even higher frequency and are more damaging. That's why if you ever have a dental x-ray to take a picture of your teeth, they put a heavy shield on you to prevent exposing more of your body than necessary to the x-rays. To stop the x-rays requires this thicker lead shield; you can't stop them with a lotion. And, gamma rays are the most ionizing/damaging of light. Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation with the highest frequencies. Scientists have known for a long time (with a great deal of certainty) that the higher the frequency, the more dangerous the electromagnetic light. (Electromagnetic radiation; the two words are interchangeable in this context, as long as we agree that not all light is visible to human eyes.)

And scientists know that green light is generally not damaging to humans. Though, someone could make a laser and burn your skin due to the intensity of the green light - a very high intensity also can have a high amount of energy. But, even the lowest intensity of gamma radiation is bad for you, while a low intensity of green light is completely harmless. And, the lower the frequency of electromagnetic light, the more harmless it is. The radiation (invisible light) from your cell phone is around 1 million times lower in frequency. That is, it's about 1 million times more harmless than harmless green light. And, the intensity of radiation (light) from your cell phone is also very low.

In short, there is no mechanism by which the electromagnetic light from your cell phone can cause cancer. So, why this article that I'm responding to? Imagine that you randomly throw 100 darts at a checkerboard on a wall. They will NOT be spread out perfectly. You count the darts in each little square and note that one of the squares has more darts in it than any other square. You can do one of two things: you can repeat the experiment again and again and see if each time, or even a lot more times than can be explained by pure chance, that this square gets more darts than the rest of the dart board. Or, you can print a click-bait "news" article like the one I'm responding to, and declare that the science isn't settled - there might just be a link. This article searched for that one time when one particular square got more hits, and is attempting to draw a conclusion based on that, rather than looking at the hundreds upon hundreds of trials where that square didn't get more hits; and calling the conclusion "good science." It's not.

 

[Gibsons]

I think the argument is fine, though I worry that it might be tldr for the intended audience.

That said, you might want to speak about what "ionizing" means and why it's so important to distinguish between ionizing and non-ionizing.

 

[Mr Evil]

Ok, I'm going to poke a massive hole: There are a lot more effects from electromagnetic radiation than just ionization and heating. This has been known to chemists for a long time, and exploited by them to alter the way chemical reactions occur. One of these effects is the generation of electrical currents in conductive materials (i.e. how radio works), and it just so happens that DNA is an effective antenna. There is also quite a bit of experimental evidence that microwaves cause DNA damage.

That's not to say that I believe phones cause cancer - I know of no evidence for that - but you can't say that it's impossible.

 

[Hi-Fi Man]

As an RF ground transmissions systems tech in the Air Force I can tell you that the radios in cell phones do not have enough wattage, gain, or directivity to cause any significant heating or most likely cancer either.

I've worked on several HF, VHF, UHF, SHF, EHF, and microwave LOS (~14-15GHz) radios with all of them being able to transmit several watts (5-30 being common). The radio in your phone doesn't even get over 1 watt I believe and not only that, the antennas they use aren't highly directional and don't have lots of gain. This means the energy gets spread out more instead of being focused in a single "beam".

I bring this up because this job doesn't have a higher than average cancer rate and it's not something we worry about. There is only one AFSC out there that has a reputation for working around potentially dangerous radiation and that is old ground radar. Older ground radar systems used thousands of watts and a lot of the guys I talk to from old ground radar say all their children have been females. Of course that's all anecdotal but it should put things in perspective.

Of course we still take precautions when working around microwave LOS and SHF SATCOM because the radios and antennas used for these systems have high directivity/gain and can if needed put out a lot of wattage (dozens). We take precautions because we know if grossly mishandled these antennas could cause burns but not cancer.

 

[Sheep221]

If you would tape entire surface of your body with cellphones which would be all calling together or constantly downloading something over 4G. Doing so without interruption for few years could definitely cause illness.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I think it is a good explanation without going into details that would require a full background understanding of the subject.
The frequency matters and the intensity. And cell phones sort of have omnidirectional antenna's to spread out the rf signal, to increase coverage. Depending on the gsm band, maximum output power can be between 0.25watts and 8 watts(GSM-900 only). But that is only for a short moment. To save battery output, the transmitter output power is reduced to as low as possible to maintain battery power. The cellphone gsm asic is constantly adjusting output power to get an optimum gsm connections but with as low transmitter output power as possible.
A rule of thumb is that the more far away a cellphone is from the cellphone tower, the more transmitter power is needed. A building functioning as a cage of Faraday will also make the cellphone increase transmitter output power.

 

[John Connor]

I don't think cell phones would cause cancer in general. But like ionization radiation, it's not so much the amount of radiation, or in this case wattage (power), but length of exposure. So in this case if you used your call phone every day for 4 hours a day for years on end, expect an issue.

I'm going to toss a wrench in here and say that gas stations don't even want you to use your cell phone. Yet I see people do it.

Speaking of cell phones. There's also overhead power lines that have people saying the EMF causes issue.

 

[John Connor]

LMAO! here's a load of crap. I had a laugh at the last sentence.

Buy some EMF products to counter artificial EMFs, which in turn will help restore balance to the fields around you.

Balance? So it's like feng shui?

http://www.newhealthadvisor.com/living-near-power-lines.html

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm going to toss a wrench in here and say that gas stations don't even want you to use your cell phone. Yet I see people do it.

Gas stations don't want you to use cell phones due to spark danger from a malfunctioning battery.

 

[C1]

I have been personally seeing MRI results showing cellular changes in the brains just behind the ears of various long term radio phone users. (Doctors claim no explanation for what is going on.) In addition, I attend various meetings & venues and it comes up too often people reported medical emergencies requiring an operation of the brain to excise tumor, guess where? (That's right, behind the ear on the side that they regularly use their radio phone.)

Although maybe not directly resulting in cancer, seen are reports that long term (like over 10 years) exposure to microwave radiation is shown to result in cellular changes in the proximity to the source.

As such, the advisory is that children should not be significant users of radio phones held close to the head/brain.

Radio phones become quite hot from the energy used. Although not strictly an issue with radio phones, "just a watt" can be a big deal if the duty cycle is sufficient. (Remember, the CERN collider is said to simply be the power equivalent of only 14 mosquitoes, but at the subatomic level it is creating energies claimed to rival the "big bang" and no one would expose themselves to the beams. Similarly one watt from a radar transmitter can be duty cycled to huge instantaneous energies.)

All in all, it is better to be judicious regarding use of microwave devices in close proximity, particularly accumulated long term.

 

[Pulsar]

Science, meet anecdotal evidence.

 

[bononos]

DECT cordless phones apparently act like base stations without any power tuning and continue radiating even when the handset is not in use in the cradle. Only the newer eco models shut off when the handset is in the cradle.

"DECTs or similar phones are now widely used throughout the world. Independent measurements have been carried out on the power of the microwaves emitted, the most thorough by Thomas Haumann (Umweltanlaytik und Baubiologie, Essen, Germany) and Peter Sierck (Environmental Testing & Technology, Inc., Encinatas, California, USA) in 2002 [21] They found a maximum power density of over 600 000 mW/m2 at the normal distance of 1 foot (0.3 m)"
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/cordlessPhonesBrainTumours.php

 

[John Connor]

The DECT 6.0 phones in the U.S. are in the 1800 MHZ band.

 

[VirtualLarry]

They found a maximum power density of over 600 000 mW/m2 at the normal distance of 1 foot (0.3 m)"
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/cordlessPhonesBrainTumours.php

Your text says mW (milliwatts), but the chart shows microwatts (1000 times less).. 600,000 mW is 600W! That's one heck of a radio!...

 

[John Connor]

LOL Completely overlooked uW.

 

[CycloWizard]

In terms of frequency/dose drivers of tissue damage, it depends quite a bit on the cell type. For example, the retina is susceptible to damage from infrared, whereas the cornea is susceptible to UV. This depends on the absorption spectrum and composition of the cells/extracellular matrix in each tissue. Different cell types can also have different susceptibilities to electric/magnetic fields (including bone-related cells) while others contain voltage-gated ion channels (including most neurons). Cell phones definitely produce EMF powerful enough to interfere with nearby speakers, so it could be possible that more indirect mechanisms could result in problems after chronic use. I'm not arguing that they do - only that these weren't considered in the OP.

 

[William Gaatjes]

In terms of frequency/dose drivers of tissue damage, it depends quite a bit on the cell type. For example, the retina is susceptible to damage from infrared, whereas the cornea is susceptible to UV. This depends on the absorption spectrum and composition of the cells/extracellular matrix in each tissue. Different cell types can also have different susceptibilities to electric/magnetic fields (including bone-related cells) while others contain voltage-gated ion channels (including most neurons). Cell phones definitely produce EMF powerful enough to interfere with nearby speakers, so it could be possible that more indirect mechanisms could result in problems after chronic use. I'm not arguing that they do - only that these weren't considered in the OP.

Although i agree with everything you have written, we lose cells constantly because of the food and fluids( like beer and other alcoholic beverages) we consume and pathogens and background radiation and cosmic radiation. But this is why our cells have such an advanced error correction mechanism. And if that does not work, we have apoptosis. I agree that neurons can have an effect, i can remember research where a weak magnetic field on pigeons can alter the awareness of the pigeon with respect to the earth magnetic fields which pigeons can sense.

I am sure, that cell phones can have an effect, but only if the cells are already weakened by an external factor, like for example a virus. And i admit, this is common.

 

[CycloWizard]

Losing cells isn't the only possible negative outcome. A worse one often involves differentiation into a different cell type due to some stimuli. Other bad things include DNA damage (for which repair mechanisms exist but often fail in cases resulting in cancer), protein aggregation and precipitation, loss of inter-cellular signaling from a loss of voltage-gated channel function, or production of unusual/aberrant proteins for the cell type in response to stimulus.

 

[William Gaatjes]

I agree.
I wish there was more fundamental knowledge about how tumor cells arise.
Like the p53 gene is found out. The disturbances in various types of cells when exposed with an em field with a strength comparable as neurons get exposed to when using a gsm , but the barrier formed by skin and bone should be taken into account as well.

 

[BurnItDwn]

So a teacher and a physicist have a discussion about radiation, and all I can do is post the 1st line of what might have potentially become a funny joke.

 

[agent00f]

Losing cells isn't the only possible negative outcome. A worse one often involves differentiation into a different cell type due to some stimuli. Other bad things include DNA damage (for which repair mechanisms exist but often fail in cases resulting in cancer), protein aggregation and precipitation, loss of inter-cellular signaling from a loss of voltage-gated channel function, or production of unusual/aberrant proteins for the cell type in response to stimulus.

The microwaves put out by cell phones are mostly just going to heat up cell tissue, which is why the government imposes some limits on power. If it really causes cancer or other serious damage, then sure we would've seen symptoms on people who use unregulated (ie powerful) radios and whatnot.

Also, just some trivia, but I recall the regs were based around some model of power at the speaker hole or somesuch, which is why the phone radio antennas are generally placed closer to the base of the unit.

 

[Selenium_Glow]

I don't think cell phones would cause cancer in general. But like ionization radiation, it's not so much the amount of radiation, or in this case wattage (power), but length of exposure. So in this case if you used your call phone every day for 4 hours a day for years on end, expect an issue.

I'm going to toss a wrench in here and say that gas stations don't even want you to use your cell phone. Yet I see people do it.

Speaking of cell phones. There's also overhead power lines that have people saying the EMF causes issue.

I want to cross the point on the "Gas stations don't ever want you to use your cell phone part". All gas station in my country use these wireless credit card machines to let you pay the bill. and funnily enough, these machines work on GPRS or 3G (which I'm sure you know is the same cellphone technology that we are talking about here). Not sure why using my phone is any more dangerous than it already is with the credit card machines.

Also, the article response by DrPizza is mostly good. But I would have made it a bit more brief for the "TL;DR" public. An example I like to give commonly -- "WiFi and Microwave Ovens in home use the same 2.4 GHz frequency." Yet we use one tech every day for video, messaging and what not with no ill effects, while the other cooks you a hot meal. The difference is in Power output. Put 1000 Watts of any energy form in a closed space, it will cook things. But that same energy in 10-15 watts will never harm you or any other living thing. Compare this to the energy of 1400 Watts per sq. meter on earth due to sun's radiation that scientist claim cause skin cancer. I reckon that exposing yourself to less than 1% of that energy will cause us no harm whatsoever. It's not powerful enough to cook us. The cells in our body are also constantly changing and replacing with newer cells. The cells that got exposed to radiation yesterday will not be there a week later anyway, so I'm not convinced by the "length of exposure" argument unless it is a 24x7 one (and no research is done over 24x7 exposure to cellphone use because it is not a "realistic" test).

 

[agent00f]

I want to cross the point on the "Gas stations don't ever want you to use your cell phone part". All gas station in my country use these wireless credit card machines to let you pay the bill. and funnily enough, these machines work on GPRS or 3G (which I'm sure you know is the same cellphone technology that we are talking about here). Not sure why using my phone is any more dangerous than it already is with the credit card machines.

Also, the article response by DrPizza is mostly good. But I would have made it a bit more brief for the "TL;DR" public. An example I like to give commonly -- "WiFi and Microwave Ovens in home use the same 2.4 GHz frequency." Yet we use one tech every day for video, messaging and what not with no ill effects, while the other cooks you a hot meal. The difference is in Power output. Put 1000 Watts of any energy form in a closed space, it will cook things. But that same energy in 10-15 watts will never harm you or any other living thing. Compare this to the energy of 1400 Watts per sq. meter on earth due to sun's radiation that scientist claim cause skin cancer. I reckon that exposing yourself to less than 1% of that energy will cause us no harm whatsoever. It's not powerful enough to cook us. The cells in our body are also constantly changing and replacing with newer cells. The cells that got exposed to radiation yesterday will not be there a week later anyway, so I'm not convinced by the "length of exposure" argument unless it is a 24x7 one (and no research is done over 24x7 exposure to cellphone use because it is not a "realistic" test).

Microwaves have somewhat better penetration that light, and distance/focus rather matters with EM.

 

[gbeirn]

My old boss had something removed from his hip, now I don't know the specifics of what it was: tumor, precancerous or what. His doctors were obviously concerned enough to remove it.

The spot on his hip is where he holsters his cell phone everyday for 8-10+ hours since the mid 90s.

 

[SMOGZINN]

My old boss had something removed from his hip, now I don't know the specifics of what it was: tumor, precancerous or what. His doctors were obviously concerned enough to remove it.

The spot on his hip is where he holsters his cell phone everyday for 8-10+ hours since the mid 90s.

A good friend of mine had a cancerous tumor removed from his foot.
That on that same foot he has worn a shoe for 10-12 hours a day since we was a child!