→ Science
The Cell Phone Cancer Question, Again
| Wed Jul. 1, 2009 2:30 PM PDT
The debate over whether electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless technology causes cancer rages on. Yesterday, an advocacy group called the National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy sent a letter to journalists and lawmakers urging them to "learn about the health consequences of microwave radiation exposure from cell phones, neighborhood antennas, wireless networks, wireless routers, DECT portable phones, and the potential health consequences of further chronic exposures from wireless broadband and new wireless utility technologies."
The folks behind this latest media blitz are some of the same ones who authored the controversial BioInitiative Report in 2007, which linked wireless radiation to cancer and a host of other health problems.* When I investigated the issue of whether cell phones cause brain cancer last spring, I was told by some BioInitiative authors that we'd finally have the answer in a few months, when the conclusive results from the multinational Interphone Study, the holy grail of cell phone health research, would finally be released.
But a year later, the results still haven't been released. Why not?
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Some say the Interphone scientists have serious qualms about publishing what could be seriously flawed research. The Economist reports:
One problem was what statisticians call selection bias. Interphone began by gathering a group of people who had had the cancers of interest (glioma, meningioma, acoustic neurinoma and parotid gland tumour) and questioning them about their past use of mobile phones. The researchers then approached a number of healthy people in order to compare them with the cancer patients, and find out if there was a systematic difference in mobile-phone use between the two groups. Some of those approached agreed, and some declined. Of those who agreed to take part, 59% were regular mobile-phone users as defined by the study’s protocol. Later on, those who had declined were recontacted and asked about their mobile use. Among this group, only 34% were regular users. That meant those in the control group were more likely than average to be regular users, and therefore were not representative of the population at large.
Moreover, the definition of “regular mobile-phone use” was itself questionable. Anyone who had used a phone just once a week for at least six months qualified. That is a pretty low rate of usage. If phones really do cause cancer, but only at high exposure, employing such a generous definition of regular use means that the effect might be diluted into undetectability.
Another potentially serious flaw is that participants asked in 2001-02 about their mobile use a decade earlier will have been using analogue, not digital, handsets. That would lead to a different pattern of exposure and therefore of potential risk.
So does this mean you can quit worrying that your cell phone will give you cancer? Unfortunately, no. It just means we need better research, the kind that tracks large groups of people over years, instead of relying on self-reporting. And that's going to take a while. In the meantime, some people are playing it safe. For example: In May, France banned cell phones in primary schools.
So I'm curious: Do you use an earpiece to protect yourself from potentially hazardous cell-phone radiation? Do you worry about the health effects of wi-fi? Post your thoughts in the comments.
*Correction appended: I erroneously referred to the people of the National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy as the same ones who authored the BioInitiative Report. The two groups aren't related. I apologize for the error.
Comments
Telecoms: Merchants of Death
Submitted by Jail Bush on Wed Jul. 1, 2009 11:01 PM PDT.
http://www.wirelesswatchblog.com Just wrote a long comment and somehow it was lost. thousands of scientific studies world wide confirm this technology is bad for all biological systems including flora. many forest die offs as well as the birds, bees and bats may be due to radio frequency altering their navigational systems. We as humans are getting cancer and a host of other health problems from this technology that was rushed to a mesmerized public happy to irradiate themselves endlessly while chatting to their spouse about this and that. endless hours are spent gazing lifelessly into the phone while barely noticing they happen to be in the middle of the street. some scientists say that the health debacle will overtake asbestos and tobacco in numbers of casualtes. while schools and libraries in france dismantle wi fi installations for health concerns, american schools and libraries race to install them so that we shall never have to be without a computer under our arm and in our faces. We are in uncharted waters here with america being exposed to thousands of times the radiation that other countries have to endure. lobby your city councils and school boards. wi fi does not belong in schools and cell phones don't belong in kids hands. check out: http://www.wirelesswatchblog.com
Cell Phones and Cigarettes and Coke
Submitted by DonL (not verified) on Thu Jul. 2, 2009 7:30 AM PDT.
It's shocking how we still repeat, year after year, the same thing: The article about cell-phones midly refers to "France banning cell phone use in Primary Schools" and casuarlly refers to 'the debate'.
No mention of the multitudes of other places (Sweeden, Germany, Israel, to start) in which either major findings have been reported, or legislation enacted, which show how harmful this newest tool of convenience is for people, particularly children.
WAKE UP PEOPLE !!!!!!!!!!! They used to think Cigarettes were healthy, asbestos safe...and on and on.
EMF Education Campaign to Legislators and Journalists
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jul. 2, 2009 9:59 AM PDT.
Please note the "media blitz" you mention is happening because of a report called Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution. It was mailed by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy to legislators and media because of long-standing interest in bridging the gap between scientific uncertainties and the need for laws protecting public health and safety. In the case of radiation from wireless technologies, legislators and media need to get up to speed on this important public health issue. Note NISLAPP has no affiliation with the BioInitiative Report, as you stated, although it is highly recommend legislators read this report (as well as Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution) because it is the work of scientists independent of industry funding. Please read the full press announcement about the distribution of Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side of the Wireless Revolution to legislators and journalists at http://sn.im/l5qf
__________
Another ELF Cancer threat I bet you never heard of
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jul. 2, 2009 10:03 AM PDT.
otorcycle Cancer Seat Patent Granted
MISSISSAUGA, Ontario /PR Newswire/ -- The United Kingdom has granted a patent to Canadian inventor Randall Dale Chipkar for his innovative 'electromagnetic shielding motorcycle seat'. The invention is designed to shield motorcycle electromagnetic field radiation from penetrating the rider's vital organs.
"I am grateful to the U.K. for sharing my vision and I appreciate their recognition of this serious health concern for motorcyclists. This is a major step in my quest to protect riders worldwide," Chipkar says.
"Various types of extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic field (EMF) radiations have been linked to health disorders including cancer. Many motorcycles generate excessive ELF EMF radiation up through the seat penetrating directly into the rider's groin and torso. The prostate is of major concern as it is one of the closest delicate glands invaded by the radiation. The colon and neighboring organs are also at risk," adds Chipkar.
ELF EMF radiation at close exposure is unnatural and over time could have devastating biological consequences. Major organizations now agree that ELF EMF magnetic fields are a possible carcinogen. People should not have to gamble with their health because they love riding motorcycles. Consumer safety is priority.
"ELF EMF magnetic fields penetrate through steel and even lead. Only highly processed material can dramatically shield us from these cancer controversial forces. With patent protection, we can now aggressively market innovative internally shielded seats to provide riders with peace of mind," Chipkar says.
Chipkar adds, "I am now open to licensing or even selling some of my worldwide patents as long as I am assured shielded seats can reach consumers immediately. Hopefully, this new RiderSaver™ seat accessory will revolutionize the motorcycle industry to keep riders safer.
"Let's put 'true freedom' back into riding motorcycles!" Chipkar concludes.
Chipkar can be reached through his website at http://www.motorcyclecancer.com where The Motorcycle Cancer Book is also available along with further information.
thanks, Kiera--as someone
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jul. 2, 2009 11:35 AM PDT.
thanks, Kiera--as someone who used a cell heavily for years and is now painfully sensitive to EMF, I can only share my experience that the exposure was very negative for me personally. From my research, I understand that the old kind of headsets/earbud that airplanes used to give you--empty tubes carrying sound only, not signal--are considered safe.
Incorrect to Link NISLPP/SOS (Havas and Rees) to Bioinitiative
Submitted by Villagevoice on Thu Jul. 2, 2009 2:03 PM PDT.
While I appreciate Mother Jones covering the cell phone issue, Ms. Butler's statement that "The folks behind this latest media blitz are some of the same ones who authored the controversial Bioinitiative Report in 2007..." is incorrect.
No one with the National Institiute for Science, Law, and Public Policy or Magda Havas, PhD and Camilla Rees, authors of Public Health SOS: The Shadow side of the Wireless Revolution participated in the Bioinitiative Report.
I hope Mother Jones will corrected this inaccurate statement in its next issue.
Another point - it seems the European Union Parliament does not believe the Bioinitiative Report is "controversial" and is, instead, taking quite seriously what this international Bioinitiative Working Group of independent scientists are saying as evidenced by the EUP Resolution votes of September 2008 and April 2008 concerning health and exposure to "wireless technologies". The EUP supported the resolution statement that the current ICNRP (same as US FCC) safety standard for EMF is "obsolete".
Error
Submitted by Kiera Butler on Thu Jul. 2, 2009 2:21 PM PDT.
Oops, good catch, Villagevoice et al. I conflated the National Institiute for Science, Law, and Public Policy with the BioInitiative Report--but actually, as you rightly pointed out, the two aren't related.
remain skeptical of wireless safety claims
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Jul. 2, 2009 4:53 PM PDT.
I first learned about this issue 9 years ago. Not one to take things by faith, I challenged some of the people claiming concerns, but then became mentored by a physicist retired from one of the national physics labs. I met some of the people in the national precaution groups, some authors, and later many of the researchers. I joined the industry dominated standard setting committee to see how they operated, and how there could be such a disparity in view. It became clear---there is no openness in the telecom industry to various outcomes in the health research. If there are biological effects from the radiation, then they deem the research bogus and the researcher incompetent or dishonest. If there are no effects, then they deem it real science that supports their point of view. I saw many disturbing things at those meetings. A trivializing of concerns expressed at a WHO meeting where representatives from country after country told of their constituents' plea for precaution with wireless. Snickering when a director from the brain tumor registry in the US asked them to consider all the research. The two heads of the committee (from Motorola and the military) had each found biological effects in their own research in the past, but seemed to want to apologize and distance themselves from it. It is so completely NOT unbiased, and so completely filled with conflicts of interest that seem to go unchecked. While the industry says to the public that "more research is needed," in their own company they discuss how it must be stopped. They do not want to disturb the public about any possible harm, even if there is some. And most of all, they want to keep their hands clean of liability. The indifference of the media has allowed this to go in in the US. Europe is a little farther ahead, because at least there, people have the opportunity to hear about the real research outcomes. Look, 2/3 of the independent research worldwide is showing biological effects from intensity levels that are not supposed to have effects. Only 1/3 of the industry sponsored studies show these effects. Why do you think there is a difference? If you look at the study designs, you can often see how they were designed to yield nothing....but add to the industry's famous "weight of the evidence." Remain skeptical of wireless safety claims. Do what you can to lessen your exposure, and especially that of your kids.
Believe it.
Submitted by khpeabody on Fri Jul. 17, 2009 4:06 PM PDT.
Two weeks ago I had surgery to remove a highly invasive tumor of the parotid gland, deemed stage 3 cancer. I also happen to be 30 weeks pregnant, so it's been a challenging 2nd and 3rd trimester. Right now we're facing radiation and can't seem to get a consensus on doing the treatment while pregnant versus waiting, although my surgeon wants to me to get started immediately due to the insanely fast growth rate of this tumor.
Cancer of the parotid gland is very rare and most often, these tumors are benign. I just happened to get stuck with mucoepodermoid carcinoma. For this type of cancer, there are really no other "known" causes.
I have been a regular cell phone user since 1996 and have been with Sprint (CDMA) and T-Mobile (GSM). In the past 4-5 years I have consistently logged 2000-4000 minutes per month. I was never much of a headset/bluetooth user until recent mobile phone hands-free laws in California. The parotid tumor happened to be on the right side, which is where I hold my phone when talking.
As far as I'm concerned, I would stay off your mobile phone as much as possible.
Designers of fashionable
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Nov. 14, 2009 5:27 AM PST.
Designers of fashionable things make fashion costly and everyone can not afford it. But now they don't have to worry because replicas of designers' products are available in the market. These replicas are not that must costly. Handbag is one of the accessories which designers love to design. These designers handbags are with higher cost and common woman can not afford it. It is nice option for those ladies who can not have enough budgets to buy designers handbags. It is designer replica handbags. Replica handbags are with reasonable price and one can by several replica handbags in the price of one designer handbag.
fake handbags
replica chanel
replica gucci
replica louis vuitton
replica handbags wholesale
replica shoes
Ed Hardy is a famous tattoo
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Nov. 14, 2009 5:27 AM PST.
Ed Hardy is a famous tattoo artist and designer that popularized the concept of tattoo as an art. His artistic designs made their way to the fashion and casual clothing industry giving birth to the Ed Hardy line and accessories. The most popular Ed Hardy items are the tattoo art designed Ed Hardy Belts. You can match these casual tattoo belts with your Abercrombie casual wear to emphasize the elegance of your style. So here are some basic tips in choosing the right Ed Hardy belt so you can achieve the perfect casual style.
coach handbags
rolex watches
Cell Phone Vs Cancer
Submitted by External Laptop Battery (not verified) on Mon Nov. 16, 2009 9:15 PM PST.
Very Informative post on Cell Phone Vs Cancer as "The debate over whether electromagnetic radiation from cell phones and other wireless technology causes cancer rages on."
