Topic: Mobile phones and cancer. (Read 4631 times)
all that surrounds us and kills us a little bit. We can not fully prove the benefits and dangers of something. Therefore, it is likely that mobile phone radiation in some way harm
The peer-reviewed study found rats exposed to the type of radio waves emitted by mobile phones were more likely to develop tumours in their brains and hearts.
http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699
Cellphone are maybe exposed but cellphone nowadays are super called technology you will not know that watching movies , reading memes from facebook you didn't know the time and it makes the time and day more faster so that we didn't get boored that much when we have cellphones. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699
we're not rats
Quote
http://cancer-code-europe.iarc.fr/index.php/en/ecac-12-ways/radiation-recommendation/100-any-cancer-risk-from-non-ionizing-radiation
Is there any cancer risk from non-ionizing radiation, like the electromagnetic fields from power lines, the microwaves used in microwave ovens, and the radio waves used for wireless technologies (mobile phones, Wi-Fi, television, and radio)?
Electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields emitted from devices such as electrical appliances, broadcasting transmitters, power lines or electrical wiring, mobile phones, or other wireless communication do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds; thus, these fields are called “non-ionizing radiation”.
The known biological effects of these fields can occur at much higher levels of exposure than those that occur in everyday situations. These include nerve stimulation and tissue heating, but technologies comply with protection guidelines that are set to prevent these health effects. These types of non-ionizing radiation are not recognized as causes of cancer.
However, some technologies are relatively new, or the ways in which they are used have changed. In such situations, it takes scientists a long time to collect enough data to rule out cancer risk with certainty.
For example, there are some open questions related to heavy use of mobile phones.
Until firm scientific conclusions can be drawn,
some easy-to-follow measures can be used to reduce everyday exposure,
like using a wired hands-free set or avoiding very long phone calls.
Is there any cancer risk from non-ionizing radiation, like the electromagnetic fields from power lines, the microwaves used in microwave ovens, and the radio waves used for wireless technologies (mobile phones, Wi-Fi, television, and radio)?
Electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic fields emitted from devices such as electrical appliances, broadcasting transmitters, power lines or electrical wiring, mobile phones, or other wireless communication do not have enough energy to break chemical bonds; thus, these fields are called “non-ionizing radiation”.
The known biological effects of these fields can occur at much higher levels of exposure than those that occur in everyday situations. These include nerve stimulation and tissue heating, but technologies comply with protection guidelines that are set to prevent these health effects. These types of non-ionizing radiation are not recognized as causes of cancer.
However, some technologies are relatively new, or the ways in which they are used have changed. In such situations, it takes scientists a long time to collect enough data to rule out cancer risk with certainty.
For example, there are some open questions related to heavy use of mobile phones.
Until firm scientific conclusions can be drawn,
some easy-to-follow measures can be used to reduce everyday exposure,
like using a wired hands-free set or avoiding very long phone calls.
I think its impossible to cause cancer using those mobiles phones. maybe in your eyes if you are stay too much in your computer with high contrast can affect your eyesight..
If you eat really healthy, you will die of old age before the phone cancer gets you.
Scientists have not proved it. And if they can prove it is necessary to prohibit all mobile phones. Or develop secure
They are in official european list of cancerogenic fonts.
The rays from the mobile which is invisible effects the brain in a slow way and continuous talking on the phone over the years will hamper your brain and effects at the older age. That is why even mobile antenna are under radar for harmful rays.
this is only a theory. Scientists have not proved it. And if they can prove it is necessary to prohibit all mobile phones. Or develop secure
What about Wifi and cancel. There's a lot of things in this era that can hurt us. What are we going to do? Stop using cellphones?
There is no need for anyone to stop using cellphones if they don't want to. At the end of the day it's your call, you decide if cancer is an acceptable risk. But you can't turn around and blame phone manufacturers or anyone else if you end up with cancer. This is true for everything in life, you always only have yourself to blame for your actions/thoughts/decisions.
What about Wifi and cancel. There's a lot of things in this era that can hurt us. What are we going to do? Stop using cellphones?
Very high levels of radiation are known to cause harmful effects in humans. However, the "high radiation level" referred to here is not mobile phones but very powerful UHF / VHF television transmitters, FM radio transmitters and radars. These are the most feared ones.
The rays from the mobile which is invisible effects the brain in a slow way and continuous talking on the phone over the years will hamper your brain and effects at the older age. That is why even mobile antenna are under radar for harmful rays.
The truth is, no one knows the real cause of cancer. The research goes on...
Putting down your mobile phone does nothing about the myriad of signals passing around you and through you right now. So, don't be afraid to make the call, your friends, neighbors, the TV, the computer, and many things are all covering you in the same radio waves right this second.
yes there are some cases reports, and i say that on social media, i think we should be careful about and should try not to use mobile without feeling the ex trim need of using mobile.
Mobile phones? Not a chance, it is too weak and, more importantly, not focused. But, let's say that all of what people say is possible, just for ++++ and giggles. There is nothing that you can do now.
i heard it could take longer then our life time for mobile to affect our brains or cause cancer.
The explanation is good, but its in contrast to the results in the paper of OP. Are they a fraud? Did they mess up the experiment?
I actually found a review of the experiment linked in the OP by the ACEBR
http://acebr.uow.edu.au/index.html
Here is their official statement, of course you can read it all on the link above, but for those who don't want to follow the link.
Quote
An overall consideration is that the NTP release does not contain sufficient information to enable adequate review. For example, without detail of other endpoints tested it is hard to correctly interpret the statistical analyses. This is pointed out by Reviewer Dr Lauer, from the National Institutes of Health, who writes
“Why aren’t we being told, at least at a high level, of the results of other experiments (i.e., male and female mice, tissues other than heart and brain, tumors other than glioma and schwannoma)? Given the multiple comparisons inherent in this kind of work… there is a high risk of false positive discoveries. In the absence of knowing other findings, we must worry about selective reporting bias.” Dr Lauer states “I am unable to accept the authors’ conclusions”. Indeed as pointed out by the NTP Associate Director Dr Bucher at the NTP press conference, about 20 to 30% of the scientists within NTP who examined the report did not agree with the conclusions; an indication that more thorough scrutiny was required. Without such thorough scrutiny the conclusions cannot be taken as more than the provisional positions of the authors, rather than a scientific contribution.
However, even given the limited information provided, there are a number of issues that stand out and question the relevance of the NTP report to public health. These include both methodological and interpretational issues.
“Why aren’t we being told, at least at a high level, of the results of other experiments (i.e., male and female mice, tissues other than heart and brain, tumors other than glioma and schwannoma)? Given the multiple comparisons inherent in this kind of work… there is a high risk of false positive discoveries. In the absence of knowing other findings, we must worry about selective reporting bias.” Dr Lauer states “I am unable to accept the authors’ conclusions”. Indeed as pointed out by the NTP Associate Director Dr Bucher at the NTP press conference, about 20 to 30% of the scientists within NTP who examined the report did not agree with the conclusions; an indication that more thorough scrutiny was required. Without such thorough scrutiny the conclusions cannot be taken as more than the provisional positions of the authors, rather than a scientific contribution.
However, even given the limited information provided, there are a number of issues that stand out and question the relevance of the NTP report to public health. These include both methodological and interpretational issues.
There are also very... very... basic methodical errors also listed.
I'm convinced, thanks! The scientists were to fast to jump to conclusions in this paper.
The explanation is good, but its in contrast to the results in the paper of OP. Are they a fraud? Did they mess up the experiment?
I actually found a review of the experiment linked in the OP by the ACEBR
http://acebr.uow.edu.au/index.html
Here is their official statement, of course you can read it all on the link above, but for those who don't want to follow the link.
Quote
An overall consideration is that the NTP release does not contain sufficient information to enable adequate review. For example, without detail of other endpoints tested it is hard to correctly interpret the statistical analyses. This is pointed out by Reviewer Dr Lauer, from the National Institutes of Health, who writes
“Why aren’t we being told, at least at a high level, of the results of other experiments (i.e., male and female mice, tissues other than heart and brain, tumors other than glioma and schwannoma)? Given the multiple comparisons inherent in this kind of work… there is a high risk of false positive discoveries. In the absence of knowing other findings, we must worry about selective reporting bias.” Dr Lauer states “I am unable to accept the authors’ conclusions”. Indeed as pointed out by the NTP Associate Director Dr Bucher at the NTP press conference, about 20 to 30% of the scientists within NTP who examined the report did not agree with the conclusions; an indication that more thorough scrutiny was required. Without such thorough scrutiny the conclusions cannot be taken as more than the provisional positions of the authors, rather than a scientific contribution.
However, even given the limited information provided, there are a number of issues that stand out and question the relevance of the NTP report to public health. These include both methodological and interpretational issues.
“Why aren’t we being told, at least at a high level, of the results of other experiments (i.e., male and female mice, tissues other than heart and brain, tumors other than glioma and schwannoma)? Given the multiple comparisons inherent in this kind of work… there is a high risk of false positive discoveries. In the absence of knowing other findings, we must worry about selective reporting bias.” Dr Lauer states “I am unable to accept the authors’ conclusions”. Indeed as pointed out by the NTP Associate Director Dr Bucher at the NTP press conference, about 20 to 30% of the scientists within NTP who examined the report did not agree with the conclusions; an indication that more thorough scrutiny was required. Without such thorough scrutiny the conclusions cannot be taken as more than the provisional positions of the authors, rather than a scientific contribution.
However, even given the limited information provided, there are a number of issues that stand out and question the relevance of the NTP report to public health. These include both methodological and interpretational issues.
There are also very... very... basic methodical errors also listed.
I could tell you "Bananas don't cause cancer, they are yellow and this color doesn't cause any sort of cellular damage". Please post experimental results, this is not a religious debate.
OP posted link to article with some results on rats, it's more convincing than one liners.
OP posted link to article with some results on rats, it's more convincing than one liners.
I'd agree with you that bananas don't cause cancer. That doesn't change the fact that Potassium 40 a beta emitting isotope of Potassium is present in Bananas. I'm not entirely sure how to link a source for my in progress Masters Degree in Nuclear Physics, but I did explain the energy emission of cell phone waves vs the energy emission of Beta decay.
The explanation is good, but its in contrast to the results in the paper of OP. Are they a fraud? Did they mess up the experiment?
I could tell you "Bananas don't cause cancer, they are yellow and this color doesn't cause any sort of cellular damage". Please post experimental results, this is not a religious debate.
OP posted link to article with some results on rats, it's more convincing than one liners.
OP posted link to article with some results on rats, it's more convincing than one liners.
I'd agree with you that bananas don't cause cancer. That doesn't change the fact that Potassium 40 a beta emitting isotope of Potassium is present in Bananas. I'm not entirely sure how to link a source for my in progress Masters Degree in Nuclear Physics, but I did explain the energy emission of cell phone waves vs the energy emission of Beta decay.
Well, there were many inventions before which were totally safe - and later when science evolved suddenly they become totally dangerous.
Cigarettes are main example - for the first half of 20th century they were advertised as a cure for stress.
Cigarettes are main example - for the first half of 20th century they were advertised as a cure for stress.
This isn't a matter of carcinogens or other effects on the human body by substances, its a matter of the laws of physics based on energy. Cancer from radiation is caused by ionizing energy from high energy waves causing damage to the body. The RF spectrum we are talking about isn't considered ionizing as the energy is too low. It is entirely possible that we don't understand the true causes of cancer, and for that reason Cell Phone signals could cause cancer. But in order for that to be true, sunlight and such would cause 100,000x as much damage as cell phones, (as sunlight has 100,000x more energy) still making them have negligible effect.
*where my numbers figures come from
The solid evidence is in the basic principals of wave/particle physics. No scientists even question whether or not cell phones are dangerous. If you have a banana for breakfast, that is technically one trillion (10^12) times more radiation than from cell phone signals. The energy of a wave = plank's constant * the frequency. 6.63x10^-34Js * 2x10^9Hz (2Ghz) = 1.2x10^-24 J. On the other hand, the Potassium 40 in your morning banana is a beta emitter. Beta emitters give off around 1x10^-12 J. Something else to keep in mind, FM Radio is around 100Mhz, compare that to Cellphones and the energy isn't much different. We all know Xrays are dangerous, well they start around 3x10^16 Hz. Visible Lights is 430-770 Thz (4.3-7.7x10^14 Hz). Cell Phones, Wifi, Bluetooth, things in the Ghz range are 100% completely safe. There is absolutely no reason based on science that non ionizing RF radiation is detrimental to human health.
Long story short, sunlight and bananas are doing trillions of times more damage to you than that call to mom.
Jump to: