More nonsense about cellphones and cancer

In the most recent instance of the triumph of wishful thinking over basic physics, a "collaboration of international EMF activists" last week released a new report repeating the tired old argument that "cellphones cause brain tumors."  Their evidence: that studies discrediting the link between cellphone radiation and tumors were funded by telecommunications companies, which deliberately excluded data that might have shown a link.

Many people probably first heard about the "risk" of cellphones when David Raynard, whose wife died of brain cancer, appeared on the television show "Larry King Live" in 1993 to support his lawsuit claiming that the tumor had been caused by her cellphone. His evidence: "She held it against her head and talked on it all the time." More recently, King hosted three neurosurgeons who said they would never place a cellphone against their head because of the risk. They may be good neurosurgeons, but apparently they flunked physics in college.

Cancer occurs when cellular DNA is disrupted, producing mutant strands of DNA. That is true for carcinogens, viruses and radiation. All radiation is composed of photons, and the energy they contain depends on the wavelength of the radiation. Yellow light has a frequency of 5 x 10¹⁴ Hz and is not powerful enough to break DNA bonds. Otherwise, we'd have to sit around in darkened rooms all the time. The frequency of a typical cellphone is about 1 x 10⁹ Hz, while that used in a household microwave oven is 2.45 x 10¹² Hz. In other words, the radiation from a microwave oven packs only a thousandth of the energy of yellow light, while that from a cellphone packs a millionth of the energy. (See, for example, the September/October issue of Skeptical Inquirer.) The energy of EMF radiation from power lines -- also a bugaboo of the EMF activists -- has a million-fold less energy than a cellphone.

(The risk of cancer from sunlight is caused by ultraviolet radiation, which does have enough energy to break DNA bonds.)

That is nowhere near enough energy to break bonds in DNA. For a microwave oven, it would be like trying to cut barbed wire with plastic scissors. For a cellphone, it would be more like paper scissors. And for EMF from powerlines, in the words of New Yorkers, fuhgeddaboutit.

And if that isn't enough, Danish researchers reported in in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in 2001 on a study of half a million cellphone users in that country, linking computerized records of cellphone use to cancer databases. The result: no detectable risk. An editorial in the same journal by physicist Robert L. Park of the University of Maryland summarized the evidence against a potential link. Many other studies have found the same results -- which is to be expected if the laws of physics do, in fact, hold in this universe.

And as for those YouTube videos purporting to show cellphones popping corn: They're fake. Cardo Systems, a manufacturer of Bluetooth headpieces for cellphones, has publicly admitted that it created the videos to scare consumers and encourage them to buy its products. The effect was created by dropping popped corn on the table, then editing out the unpopped kernels.

-- Thomas H. Maugh II

Comments

[Caroline]

Then why does my ear burn when I hold my Blackberry to it? I've started using an earpiece recently, but if I forget my ear starts to heat up and it is physically painful after a few moments. I returned my first Blackberry but the replacement does the same thing.

[Nonplussed]

Is this posting supposed to represent journalism somehow? Your opinion here is incredibly neat and tidy, with supporting evidence that is no more thorough than the research or claims you debunk. I love how this is presented as something that we all should have learned in a class somewhere. Are newspapers so desperate for ratings that this is the new way of getting people to engage with "news"? I find that trend more disturbing than the posted ridiculous opinions themselves.

[Marc Twane From Silverlake]

Interesting...while I am a firm believer in science, I would say the jury must sit out on this one for the time being...

Cell phones have not been around long enough to make this call (ha-ha, pun!)...

The science of the past has been proven wrong many times... Examples abound (in no particular order): cigarettes, Vioxx, Cyclamate, Saccharin, Shoe-Fitting Fluoroscope, and so on...

At one point, these were all thought to be safe due to the science behind them...look at them now.

Let's see what the next couple of decades bring in terms of the usage of cell phones and adverse health effects.

PS: This is one of my favorites:

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/shoefittingfluor/shoe.htm

[Oliver]

For Caroline:

Your ear is burning because your phone is getting hot. This has nothing to do with EMF or cellphone radiation being discussed in this article. Your phone is heating up because you are using it, much like a computer heats up more if you do more intensive tasks. I've noticed this becoming more common as phones become smaller and more feature packed. I do agree that most of my previous phones never got hot from talking.

So, rest assured, all is well with your Blackberry.

[ML]

I agree that the evidence and the science don't support cell phones causing cancer, but one little correction: the statement "All radiation is composed of photons" is not true. To quote wikipedia:

In physics, radiation describes any process in which energy emitted by one body travels through a medium or through space, ultimately to be absorbed by another body. Non-physicists often associate the word with ionizing radiation (e.g., as occurring in nuclear weapons, nuclear reactors, and radioactive substances), but it can also refer to electromagnetic radiation (i.e., radio waves, infrared light, visible light, ultraviolet light, and X-rays) which can also be ionizing radiation, to acoustic radiation, or to other more obscure processes. What makes it radiation is that the energy radiates (i.e., it travels outward in straight lines in all directions) from the source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation

Also, @Caroline, your Blackberry is probably heating up.

[Eric]

Hi --- I generally agree with what Thomas has said here, but clearly microwave ovens pack enough punch to actually cook food, and cell phones have to be kept away from pacemakers -- so there is plenty of energy being emitted from them.

Right?

[ahqaaq]

It's not just the reporters opinion, it's the findings of the science. And yes, nonplussed, you should have learned something about science in a class somewhere (school would have been a good place for that). For Caroline, maybe your Blackberry is just hot?

[Caroline]

This is all well and good, but why is it that I am some others get a painful sensation in the temple or ear when talking on a cellphone? What is it that I am feeling? It is not heat; it commences when the call does, not when the phone heats up.

Any one else feel this?

[Stoaty Marmot]

If you search Pubmed, you will find recent articles (within the last 2-3 years) of case control studies which suggest that cell phone use my increase the risk of acoustic neuroma and high-grade astrocytomas. Citing one study doesn't prove or disprove a connection. The jury is still out on this one.

[Bryant]

I agree cell phones are dangerous. When you are talking on them while driving and not paying attention. That has killed more people than any brain tumors.

[Morgan]

And talking on a cell phone while receiving a vaccination causes belief that the President was born in Kenya.

[Revgen]

Yeah, I guess Dr. Carlo must be some kind of quack.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2007/aug2007_report_cellphone_radiation_01.htm

[Manuel]

There are two problems with Mr. Maugh's note: 1) the frequency used in a microwave oven is not 2.45 Terahertz. It is 2.45 Gigahertz and is in the range used by cell phones (0.8 to 2.7 GHz, depending on band) and cordless phones (0.9, 2.4, and 5.8 Ghz), and 2) the concept of energy as a function of frequency is only applicable to ONE photon at the given frequency (E = hf, where h is Plank's constant). If the device sends more than one photon, the power does increase. A microwave oven depositing 1000 Watts onto a cup of water needs to bombard that water with about 6.2 x 10^(26) photons (that's a 6 followed by 26 zeros) per second. For a cell phone to do comparably, it would probably melt the battery first. But I am no expert on the engineering challenges of making a powerful, battery-operated mini-microwave oven.

[Xenu]

The flaw in this opinion is that it assumes that the current instruments used to make these measurements reflect the pinnacle of scientific achievement. Who's to say we won't develop better science and better measurement devices in the future. After all, 100 years ago we didn't even have cars or planes.

Fundamentally, though, it comes down to two competing principles:

1) Until you can prove it's not safe, it is safe, and

2) Until you can prove it's safe, it's not safe.

Given the track records of corporations with regards to putting profits before people, you can understand why choosing principle 2 is the more conservative approach.

[Garry]

It may be interesting to know that thermal molecular energies are on order of 25 meV (milli electon volts), nerve axon transmission energies 2-4 times higher (Nature overcomes thermal noise without being wasteful), and microwave photon energies 2000-6000 times smaller than thermal. If we assume a thermal threshold for any biochemical process, microwave effects seem unlikely. Also, with penetration depths comparable to those of microwave ovens (centimeters), and antenna powers at 1 Watt or less, raising the temperature of one liter of brain tissue one degree C, assuming no dissipation, would take more than an hour at continuous peak power.

Any unshielded implanted device can, depending on its design, "receive" and react to microwave signals, just as other microwave devices can respond to them.

Regarding the Wikipedia reference: All waves - electromagnetic, acoustic, gravitational, etc. - exchange energy as quanta, viz. photons, phonons, gravitons, and so on.

[Henry I]

Unfortunately, the public does not get it. When one of the top neuro-surgeon's (Dr. keith Black) refuses to use a blue tooth headset because of possible brain radiation exposure; that is enough for me. But, those who want to go with the cell phone industry's story-good luck.

It's just like the tobacco industry saying, "Trust us, we have your best interest in mind".

[pets of Marc Twane from Silverlake]

To all you cell phone users:

From the L. A. Times on September 9th, 2009:

latimes.com/lazarus/tumor

Boy, this newspaper is a joke, how stupid can they be?

First they run a piece by Thomas H. Maugh II citing a study that says there is no detectable risk of cell phones causing cancer, then the next day they run a piece by David Lazarus citing evidence in a study that cell phones do cause brain cancer.

I stand by my earlier comment even more strongly now (see above)!

To all you doubting Thomas's out there who continue to use hand held cell phones...good luck at being guinea pigs in one big experiment - I just hope my tax dollars don't go to pay for your medical care...

[healthmom]

Don't just use a headset. It's very important to use one with a hollow tube.

I will not use the cellphone without one!

[Bill]

I am a physicist and I have to admit I thought these things were safe until I started getting symptoms myself.

People get cancer from taking steroids, and steroids don't break DNA. Over-stimulating certain cells can cause cancer too. Prof. Martin Blank and others have shown cell phones and power lines cause a stress response in cells.

It's true that an unshielded pacemaker can "receive" the microwaves. But to make a receiver all you need is a diode (i.e., rectifier). Every living cell has a voltage and ion channels that rectify current.

Congrats to the author on passing basic physics. Too bad you didn't study some advanced biology and electronics.

[James]

It is sad how basic science is undermined by ignorant "health" activists. If these reactionaries had taken basic biology in college or high school, they would know that cancer is caused by breaking the bonds between atoms and molecules in DNA. If they had taken a basic quantum mechanics or quantum chemistry class in college, they would know that energy level of photons produced by cell phones is far too weak to break apart molecules and atoms, and that the energy density required to do so at the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation produced by cellular phones far exceeds (by many orders of magnitude) the energy density capable of being produced by cellular phones.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where we are reliant on science, but where the ignorant opinions of troglodytes who obviously understand neither chemistry, biology, nor physics are allowed to be considered against the opinion of people who were smart enough not to settle for a liberal arts degree.

As Carl Sagan wrote:
We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

[Laura P]

Quick question - if cell phones do cause cancer (I'm not saying that they do or do not, this is a question to those who think they do cause cancer), then why is it better to put the cell phone on your belt and use an earpiece? Wouldn't the cell phone cause cancer in the vital organs near your waist?

When minimally invasive surgery is performed, with fluoroscopy, everyone in the room wears a lead apron. I once asked why we don't wear something on our heads, and the response was that the organs in your abdominal cavity are more susceptible to cancer from radiation exposure.

[Roy Mankovitz]

As a co-inventor on several patent applications disclosing ways of reducing exposure of users to RF energy produced by cell phones, I have conducted a fair amount of research on the subject.

From that research, it appears that the risk of accumulated damage to brain and eye tissue may be a reality. Few people are aware that in a poor reception area, cell phones are automatically programmed to increase their RF power output by several orders of magnitude, increasing the risk of dose-dependent cell damage. See for example "Method And Apparatus For Reducing Exposure To RF Energy Produced By Portable Transmitters", US Patent Application Publication # 20080273165.

Young children would appear to be even more vulnerable to cellular damage, due to a still-developing nervous system, and less bone structure available to possibly block some of the radiation. Their smaller head size would also place the phone closer to their eyes.

Bottom line: I suggest keeping small kids away from cell phones for their physical health. For everyone else, I suggest using the speakerphone option or air powered earphones to keep the phone away from the head.

Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com

[Edgey]

Caroline-
Your ear hurts when you use your BlackBerry because you are probably holding it against your head too hard when you're in conversation. I know I have been guilty of that before-
you don't even know you're doing it.

None of my BlackBerrys have ever warmed up to the extent that the thing actually heated my ear- especially because you are holding the FRONT on the phone to your ear to talk, not the back where the battery is located.

When you push the phone against your ear, the ear gets the sensation that it's warm or even hot- and then strange, when the phone call ends, you take the phone (and the pressure) away from your ear and *presto*- the pain and the "heat" are gone!!

Try holding just your hand against your ear. I feel you may the get the same "sensation".

This is just my opinion =)

[KMV]

Seeing as how many articles and studies these days suggest that you can get cancer from just about anything, it is definitely interesting and different to read your refutation on the cell phone-cancer link. Though your physics argument is extremely compelling and very sensible, if it were so easy to disprove the cell phone-cancer link, then would it not be expected that scientists would have by now come to the same definitive conclusion and refute this link once and for all?

However, the fact remains that as of right now, there is no consensus among experts--there exist studies that show there is a link, and also studies that show there is not, and for as many studies you have mentioned about finding no such link, I can find just as many that do find a possible link and are also much more recent. With cell phones having been around for only a few decades, it is just too soon to determine whether or not there will be any long-term effects of cell phone radiation. Not only have there not been long enough studies conducted, but like the American Cancer Society website states, "many years may elapse between the radiation exposure and the appearance of the cancer." For example, Israeli researcher Siegal Sadetzki describes how "the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki occurred in 1945, while the first report demonstrating brain tumors among the survivors was not published until 1994, 50 years later." The fact is, cancer is such a tricky disease and we just do not know what long-term effects there may be until longer, more thorough studies are conducted.

But perhaps fifty years from now, science may disprove the link, and in that case you will most certainly be correct that the current fear of cell phones causing cancer is completely overblown "nonsense," as you choose to put it. However, the reality of the situation is that cancer can strike anyone anytime for any number of reasons, and with no definitive results disproving the cell phone-cancer link, I would much rather play it safe than sorry until experts conclusively and unanimously disprove this link.

[Less Cancer]

Cell phones have many benefits-I use one frequently (albeit on speaker)
However the editorial above is reminiscent of the smoking propaganda of the last century.
A lack of science does not translate to safe...Scientist that are concerned about cell phones and risk to human health are concerned about what they don't know..not what they know..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnY7utiMwG0

Bill Couzens Founder Less Cancer