Don't Panic Over Report
that Cellular Phones May Cause Cancer
Ping!
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
Posted on 05/29/2016 12:50:08 PM PDT by Swordmaker
It’s scary to hear that cellphones — devices that most of us have with us all the time — have been linked to cancer by a government study.
But despite any headlines you may have seen, there’s still not enough information or evidence for the average person to be concerned by these findings.
“I’m not going to stop using my mobile phone in the light of this,” Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, said in a statement to the Australian and UK Science Media Centre.
Here’s why you shouldn’t panic
The latest results that we have access to are very preliminary findings from a peer-reviewed study conducted by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP). That experiment looked at the effects of cell phone radiation on a number of rats, and we won’t see the full findings until at least later on this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at yahoo.com ...
Bad news for rats who use cell phones, though.
That’s only if you use them to make phone calls. Nobody does that any more.
The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.
If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me
I’ve long considered these scientific studies to be on the level of Global Warming:
One study says that the phones cause cancer.
Immediately, 3 or 4 studies are rushed out to prove that phones do not cause cancer.
Wait 5 years.
A new study says that the phones cause cancer.
Immediately, 3 or 4 studies are rushed out to prove that phones do not cause cancer.
This cycle has been going on for 25 years or so.
I’m guessing that the phones cause cancer.
I took my pet rat's cell phone away after seeing this study. The data charges were ridiculous anyway -- How can you waste that much bandwidth watching cat videos on youtube?
“Everything gives you cancer” - Joe Jackson
My cousin died at 56 of Glioblastoma six years ago. He was a newspaper reporter and author. I made the unscientific connection between his cellphone use and his cancer. Correct or not, I’ve acted accordingly.
But I’m not dead yet!
Although the states have never authorized the feds to tax and spend for such studies, the much-ignored Constitution long overdue for a few delegations of new powers for the feds, I appreciate that the feds have cautioned us about problems with smoking, and now possible problems with cell phones.
In fact, constitutional issues aside, the feds need to start running rats, the four-legged kind, through TSA back-scatter x-ray machines, if those machines are still being used, and look for signs of cancer.
“I’m guessing that the phones cause cancer.”
Lots of people guess about a lot of things. The data doesn’t support that conclusion at this point.
You shouldn’t treat a cell phone as harmless, but you should not forego wireless technology completely and expect to avoid cancer and achieve better health.
So what do you do? If you use earphones, you’ll dramatically lower your RF exposure. If you have a big concern, do that.
Millennials should start dropping like flies any day now ...
Not according to independent epidemiological studies over the time that cellphones or even wireless home phones have been in use. There has been no significant increase in gliomas or brain cancers during the period that cellular or wireless phones have been in use. If they did cause cancer it would show up in an overall increase in the incidences of such tumors. There has been no noticeable increase in the rate of such cancers over the rate that was present before the introduction of phone using the technology.
Even this study has some serious problems because only male rats developed gliomas, while the female rats exposed to the same radiation levels did not. That implies there is some other unknown causation at the core of the tumors not related to the radiation. Also the fact that the controls did not develop any tumors at all in a variety of rat bred for a predilection for such tumors is cause for concern. The level of exposure at nine hours per day at high levels of radiation is far beyond any reasonable real world exposure. Also the distances and blocking provided by a human brain and skull are completely different than those provided by a rat brain and skull. i.e. Rats are not complete human analogs for such exposures.
In other words, they exposed the rats for extremely long periods of time to very high doses of the radiation. This has zero applicability to any real-world use of cell phones. Seriously, how many people cover themselves with cellphones while the phones are transmitting for several hours each day?
The radiation in cell phones is not high enough energy to be ionizing, nor is it in the UV range--so it doesn't damage DNA. Since DNA damage is a direct mechanism for the cancerous changes that occur following radiation exposure, this means that the phones aren't likely to cause cancer through this route. And it is difficult to envision another route for them to cause cancer. Through increasing the kinetic energy of cells--well, any heat source does that, so not very likely.
Cell phones function by receiving and emitting radio waves, which are part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Just like visible light, except that they are lower energy than visible light. Typically, the radiation that causes severe health effects is higher energy than visible light; EM emissions above visible light, at the UV and higher energies, cause DNA damage.
I don’t talk on my cell phone very much but I have worn it on a belt clip for years. I wonder if the danger, if there is any, would only be if you were making a call?
Cell phones were once used primarily to make phone calls. Now they are used for everything, with an occasional phone call thrown in. I say no worries.
The phone is always in receiving mode, meaning that it constantly picks up the radiowaves that are all around us all the time. It also emits via a small weak transmitter—this is how it finds the nearest cell tower—but I am not sure how often it does that. When you talk on it, of course, it is constantly transmitting.
Another source of EM radiation would be the electric cords all over your house. If an electric cord is receiving power, it is also emitting at a low frequency.
The EM spectrum is all around us. You really only need to worry about being exposed to the high frequencies (UV and above) that can damage DNA, or about extremely intense exposures at lower frequencies, which can burn you.
Carroll points out that female rats were treated to the same signals—and there was no increase in their cancer rates. And a statistically significant increased incidence of brain cancer for male rats was only found for CDMA signals, not GSM.
That’s surprising because, while real-world GSM phones emit more radiation than CDMA phones, the experimental radiation exposure levels were held constant between parallel groups. And since the main difference between GSM and CDMA is their data standard, there should only be different impacts if DNA could be corrupted by binary code.
All that suggests the results could simply be a statistically random variation, especially since, as Carroll points out, even the elevated cancer rates were “well within the historical range.” Another expert called the study “statistically underpowered,” with a sample size too small to eliminate that kind of random variation. There’s no way to refute that explanation until more studies can reproduce this one’s results.
http://fortune.com/2016/05/29/cell-phone-cancer-study/
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
A research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true.
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
If the medical profession use higher statistical standards the quality of the articles would increase, but the number of accepted articles would go down. In a world of publish or perish this is not easy.
Studies will always be with us as long as there are government “grants”. People with diplomas need something to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.