Slashdot Log In
Cell Phone Use Study Sees Increased Cancer Risk
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Feb 15, 2008 03:29 PM
from the i-use-those-for-tasting dept.
from the i-use-those-for-tasting dept.
Dotnaught writes "Frequent cell phone users face a 50% greater risk of developing tumors in the salivary glands than those who don't use cell phones, according to a recently published study. The study, led by Tel Aviv University epidemiologist Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, appeared last December in the American Journal of Epidemiology 'Sadetzki's findings are sure to add to confusion surrounding the already contentious debate about the health effects of cell phone radiation. Many other studies in recent years have found no increased risk of cancer due to mobile phone use, but a few have stopped short of ruling the possibility out and a few have said increased risk of cancer is small but real.'. Even with the increased risk, however, you're still about three times more likely to die in a car crash in a given year."
Related Stories
[+]
Science: The Story Behind Cell Phone Radiation Research 560 comments
XopherMV writes "A study by Lai and Singh, published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics, found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered "safe" by government standards. The idea behind that study was relatively simple: expose rats to microwave radiation similar to that emitted by cell phones, then examine their brain cells to see if any DNA damage resulted.
The news was apparently unwelcome in some quarters.
According to internal documents that later came to light, Motorola started working behind the scenes to minimize any damage Lai's research might cause even before the study was released. In a memo and a draft position paper dated Dec. 13, 1994, officials talked about how they had "war-gamed the Lai-Singh issue" and were in the process of lining up experts who would be willing to point out weaknesses in Lai's study and reassure the public.
To this day, the cell phone industry continues to dispute Lai and Singh's findings although half of about 200 studies say there is a biological effect from cell phone radiation.
Read more in UW Columns."
[+]
Science: Testing Cell Phone Radiation on Humans 159 comments
Palm Addict writes "News.com reports that Finland's radiation watchdog is to study the effects of mobile phones on human proteins by direct tests on people's skin. From the article: 'A pilot study, to be conducted next week, will expose a small area of skin on volunteers' arms to cell phone radiation for the duration of a long phone call, or for one hour, research professor Dariusz Leszczynski said on Friday.'"
[+]
Science: Swedish Study Finds Cell Phone Cancer Risk 282 comments
dtjohnson writes "A new Swedish
study has
found that heavy users of cell phones had a 240 percent increase in
brain tumors on the side of their head that the phone was used
on. The study defined 'heavy' use as more than 2,000 total hours,
or approximately one hour of use per workday for 10 years. An
earlier British
study was previously discussed
here that didn't find an increased risk, although that study
covered fewer subjects and only followed one type of brain tumor for a
shorter period of time. Or course, the biggest epidemiological
study of all is the one we are all participating in whenever we use our
cell phone. The results from that study won't be available for a
while."
[+]
Science: FDA Questions Swedish Cell Phone Cancer Study 173 comments
ZZeta writes "Following up on the Swedish study on cell phone cancer risk, the FDA released a statement today questioning its reliability. From the statement: 'These facts along with the lack of an established mechanism of action and supporting animal data makes the Hardell et al's finding difficult to interpret.' Also available several links to other studies."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Good! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
In the entire summary, "tumors in the salivary glands" (not cancer; tumors. not all tumors are cancerous) were mentioned once at the very beginning. Cancer was mentioned twice afterwards, including in the sentence about car crashes.
I think we can agree the summary was poorly written, and in a way that would lead one to believe that statistics show that cancer (not cancer of the salivary glands or even tumors in the salivary glands) is more prevalent than auto deaths.
No, we cannot.
I am not a native English speaker, yet I found the summary text completely unambiguous.
Besides, you probably meant it the other way round: that the summary supposedly led people to believe that auto deaths are more prevalent than cancer.
HTH. HAND.
I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Interesting)
On top of that, many people CANNOT talk without using their hands. This is a direct conflict with driving, which requires use of at least one hand (for normal people). Yes, I have seen people driving down the road, with a headset on, AND talking with both hands... at this rate I believe that it is an activity which should get its own subcategory rank in the Darwin Awards runner's up list.
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
I felt sure it was going to funny, but I don't see it
Feel cheated.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It matters not if you are eating, talking on the mobile, using the computer, reading a magazine/newspaper, or what have you.
All show signs that complete concentration are not being used for driving. When we're using directly controlled missiles with 3 sicks of dynamite of energy in them, we need our best concentration.
I also remember what the original "Cell phones cause Cancer" was about: somebody called the Larry King show about them b
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and you missed screaming child in the back seat as a distraction/stress enhancer;-)
I will usually ignore the buzzing of my phone while driving - if it's important they can leave a message.
I agree that the cancer threat is overblown.
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Why that is (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
Is this the study you're thinking of?
Leo GugertyCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, a, Mick Rakauskasb and Johnell Brooksa
a Clemson University, Clemson, SC, USA
b HumanFIRST Program, University of Minnesota, USA
Received 23 July 2003; Revised 1 December 2003; accepted 11 December 2003. Available online 24 April 2004.
Abstract
This study focused on how teams allocated attention between a driving-related spatial task and a verbal task, and how different kinds of verbal interactions affected performance of the driving-related task. In Experiment 1, 29 two-person teams performed an interactive verbal task while one team member also performed a simulated driving task. Of the team members performing only the verbal task, half could see their partner's spatial situation, as a car passenger can (in-person condition), and half were remotely located, similar to someone speaking to a driver using a cell-phone. Teams interacted verbally at an overall slower rate during remote than in-person interactions, suggesting that remote verbal interactions are more difficult than in-person interactions. Verbal interactions degraded situation awareness for driving-related information while performing the spatial task; and this degradation was not greater during remote than in-person interactions. Experiment 2 used a faster-paced verbal task and found greater degradation of situation awareness due to the verbal task. These findings are potentially relevant to the issue of how passenger and cell-phone conversations affect driving performance.
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
More dangerous. The friend can see what's going on around you, and can shut up when needed.
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
It is FAR more dangerous to talk on the phone while driving than to talk to another person in the car.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I wonder... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Cage match (Score:5, Funny)
and one can't help but recall the Steven Wright joke about getting a humidifier
and a de-humidifier for Christmas. So he put them in one room and let them
fight it out.
Maybe there could be some kind of academic cage match between the two camps,
wherein they have to explain their research publicly, and get to critique the
methodology of the opposing camp.
The match ends when intellectual honesty compels one camp to admit that their
work is an absolut waste of human time, at which point enter John Cleese to issue
a Wensleydale [wikipedia.org].
Talk less (Score:5, Funny)
"Cancer Machine ON" (Score:3, Interesting)
So what? Chocolate makes you fat, Tobacco gives you cancer, Death and Taxes are inevitable. Until humans live forever and are tax-exempt, at least they DO have a choice on the others.
Skeptic (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like another one of those liberal lies... Like global warming.
So what if my cell phone melted to my neck goiter while I was using it outdoors in the middle of January? It's totally coincidental.
if you can pry it from my cold dead fingers... (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition, I would basically be saying goodbye to my social life (what little I have of one after work) if I stopped using a mobile phone.
Therefore, I hope this study is wrong. If it isn't I hope that mobile manufacturers can somehow make next gen phones slightly safer, if possible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You poor, poor man. I don't care how much money you have or make, you are still poverty stricken.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I went through a similar phase many years ago. It's quite flattering to feel that you're always needed - for a time. After that it becomes a chore, then something you hate.
Most people grow out of it when they realise that the people who put them "on permanent call" are really just being lazy/exploitative.
Others find it's reassuring to know that someone wants/needs them. If so, then fine - they're getting something out of it too (apart from stress
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No, I don't know what my point was.
What confusion around studies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Not reassuring (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not reassuring (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Margin of error (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Margin of error (Score:4, Informative)
These figures comes from two different studies. The \emph{relative risk} increase of 1.5 comes from one case-control study. This is then applied to a survey of the total number of cases in the population, leading to an estimate of the \emph{absolute risk} increase of 0.0015%. That's a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The result isn't worth getting too excited about, but it's interesting none the less.
The bigger problem I would have, (although I don't think it's a fatal problem for the study) is that overall they found no effect of being a regular phone user. They had to do a subgroup analysis of very heavy users in rural areas to find a significant increase. I'd also be worried this being a freak result given the number of negative findings.
Parent
Re:Margin of error (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
3x more likely (Score:5, Funny)
Particularly if you are talking on your cell phone at the time.
Radio waves or just talking a lot? (Score:3, Insightful)
Effectively Zero Risk (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on that data, a 50% increase would raise one's theoretical high-end risk of developing a tumor in the head from 0.003% per year to 0.0045% per year.
This translates into an effectively zero risk. The risk is so low that an individual couldn't really justify spending any time or money trying to lower it further.
We've got to learn that even though our advancing technology allows us to measure smaller and smaller risk, that doesn't mean that "something has to be done!" for every risk we can measure.
How do you hold it? (Score:3, Interesting)
From the article:
Does this simply mean we should use handsfree headsets or hold the phone away from our heads?
I happen to hold mine in front and use the loudspeaker but that's purely because I'm deaf in one ear and don't like not being able to hear anything else that's going on.
What *type* of cell phone? (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have access to the main journal article, so it's possible the answer is in there, but there are potentially a lot of variables in 'cell phone' use. The article kind of hints at that in the following:
I would be curious if anyone has done a larger break-down of the 'risk' seen in this study, to find out if users were using older analogue phones, or newer digital, spread-spectrum phones (which, I believe, typically run at much lower power levels). What frequencies do the phones run at? (It might be, I dunno, that different mobile phone networks around the world use different frequencies, and there might be a correlation to specific frequencies used and an increase in cancer). I would also be curious to see if anyone is able to repeat this finding in other populations outside of Israel? Maybe the increased risk is really something in the air or water? Hard to say sometimes. . .
Honestly though, if it were me, and I were living in Israel, I think there are risks I'd be more worried about than my cell phone. . . like Hezbollah missiles, Palestinian suicide bombers, another war erupting with the neighboring countries, etc. . .
Bullshit (Score:5, Informative)
Therefore, the sun is approximately infinitely more likely to cause cancer than a cell phone.
Non-ionizing radiation [wikipedia.org] (which is all that cell phones produce) has little to no impact on the human body. See for example, light bulbs, radios, radio stations, TV stations, microwaves, ovens, the earth's magnetic field, refrigerator magnets, CB radios, MRI machines, CAT scanners, PET scanners, CD players, MP3 players, computers, monitors, TVs, cell phones, watches, motors.
The worst a cell phone can do to your body via radiation, is make you a few nano-joules more energetic. Unless of course you installed a nuclear power source in your phone for some reason. Your freaking smoke detectors are more likely to cause cancer than your cell phone.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the fact that cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation is in no sense a resounding argument for their safety. We do know that typical phone signals can result in cellular heating, and there may subtle results of this and other weak interactions that we do not yet understand, especially if those interactions are somehow a function of the signal's frequency.
We do not know enough about cellular biology to make the assumption that non-ionizing radiation is inherently safe across all frequencies and power levels, especially if the source of that radiation is a cell phone -- which puts out a fair deal more radio power than the CD players and displays you compare it to, and which is typically operated right next to one's head.
Therefore, we are not justified in categorically tossing out any new research that indicates a potential link between cell phone use and health problems. The question of cell phones and cancer does not yet have enough evidence pointing in either direction to give us a solid conclusion. So just let the scientists be scientists, since raw empirical evidence is the only way we'll ever answer this question in our lifetimes.
Parent
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Walk outside on a sunny day. You have just exposed your head to far more non-ionizing radiation than a cell phone.
If exposure to non-ionizing radiation was dangerous, that gigantic fireball in the sky would have killed us all by now.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tell that to everyone who's died of skin cancer.
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Ultraviolet light causes skin cancer. Ultraviolet light is ionizing radiation. that big radiation-spewing ball also puts out lots of non-ionizing radiation. Far more non-ionizing radiation reaches the surface of the earth than ionizing radiation.
Parent
Re:Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
IAALRRT(I Am A Licensed and Registered Radiologic Technologist) ie. x-ray tech.
You are correct that the cell phone signal is indeed non-ionizing, but CAT scanners use the maximum amount of ionizing radiation that is legal to give a person. The legal limits are set so low that the net affect of having a CT is minimal especially when weighed against the possibility of having a serious medical condition go unnoticed.
CT scans typically use radiation with a penetrating strength of @120kvp (KiloVolts Peak). This is strong enough that when a cell is damaged it is usually either fatal to the cell or results in the inability of the cell to reproduce (this makes the chances of getting cancer very slim). This is why pregnant women in their first trimester can not have a CT scan. Our bodies can easily recover form the loss of a few hundred cells, but the baby will almost certainly not be able to recover.
This is all assuming that by CAT scanner you meant Computer Aided Tomography. If you meant something else then please disregard this post.
Richard Easterling
Parent
Re:Hmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The interference with speakers is caused by...wait for it... radio waves.
Those things that are engulfing all of us, all the time, in varying intensities. Naturally produced or not.
Just because you do not understand the world around you, doesn't mean you must be fearful of it.
Re:Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent