AC360, sanjay gupta Cell phone cancer caution

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I just saw a Sanjay Gupta's report on AC360 about cell phones and cancer. His premise wasn't that cell phones cause cancer but that they haven't been around long enough to conclusively evaluate long term health risks. He compared it to asbestos and cigarettes saying that since those can take 20 years to show carcinogenic risks added with the fact that widespread cell phone use is less than 15 years, we simply are unable to make a determination either way. So he left us with the old choice of the precautionary principle.

I'm not going to use an earpiece or buy a holster or anything. if they find out it's a risk then i will take steps. it's a risk i am willing to take because i don't feel there is enough reason to think that it will turnout to be carcinogenic.

 

[Emet]

Previous thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206557

 

[Beerina]

Well, it may take 20 years for problems to start showing up, but if that's true, the detractors have no reason to suspect cancer at this point. That suggests fear-mongering rather than legitimate science, or even reasonable case studies that might even *suggest* a problem.

 

[Number Six]

Why is it that some people think that cell phones cause cancer but nobody thinks that cell phones cure cancer?

 

[phunk]

Why is it that some people think that cell phones cause cancer but nobody thinks that cell phones cure cancer?

That's kinda like asking why no one thinks rocks fix windows. It's much easier to break something complex, like dna, than it is to fix it. Especially with radiation.

That said, I don't believe that cell phones cause cancer. The emf they put out isn't high enough energy.

 

[Number Six]

But isn't radiation used to treat some cancers?

 

[phunk]

Yes, by killing the cancerous tissue, not fixing it. The beam used for radiotherapy will just as easily kill healthy tissue. And cell phone antennas are omnidirectional...

 

[Number Six]

Yes but you're getting into reasons. People that say cell phones cause cancer don't usually get into reasons. They just say "Radiation causes cancer and cell phones have radiation, therefore cell phones cause cancer." But they don't say "Radiation cures cancer and cell phones have radiation, therefore cell phones cure cancer." My point is how they pick the bad thing without justification instead of picking the good thing without justification.

 

[MrQhuest]

With everyone using cellphones these days, there must be a catastrophic, and exponential surge of brain cancer cases. Has anyone, at all, demonstrated this? Has there really been a surge of brain cancer cases since the 80's?
MrQ

 

[shuttlt]

Only an as yet unidentified subgroup are vulnurable.

 

[ferd burfle]

With everyone using cellphones these days, there must be a catastrophic, and exponential surge of brain cancer cases. Has anyone, at all, demonstrated this? Has there really been a surge of brain cancer cases since the 80's?
MrQ

Link: http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/20/gupta-cell-phones-brain-tumors-and-a-wired-earpiece/

He compares the situation to asbestos and smoking, with their long latency before onset of cancer, implying, with no evidence, that there might be a similar surge in cell phone-caused cancers coming in another 5 to 10 years. And while he acknowledges that the radiation produced by phones is non-ionizing, one of the MDs he interviewed compared phones to microwave ovens, implying we're cooking our brains and that that will cause cancers.

I wrote a short email to CNN on the subject, for all the good it will do. Sensationalizing sells, nobody will watch a show about how we don't have any evidence cell phones cause cancer. It reminds me of the old Eric Idle skit:

"Did the dinosaurs build Stonehenge? We don't know. We just..don't..know"

ferd

 

[phunk]

Cooking our brains? If he's afraid of that he should really avoid thinking, it generates a lot more heat inside your brain than is even theoretically possible if you could get your brain to absorb 100% of a cell phone antenna's output.

 

[Emet]

Both Orac and SBM have written about Gupta before.

And from the previous link from the previous thread:

Conclusion:

Cell phones are an increasingly common tool of modern society. It is certainly necessary and valid to carefully study their safety and monitor for possible adverse health outcomes from their regular use. I am reassured by the current evidence, however, that there is no large risk from cell phones. There is either no risk or a very small long term risk.

Consider, however, that you are probably at greater risk of premature death from using your cell phone while driving, or from driving at all. So as individuals we always need to balance a small risk against the convenience of new technology. The better data we have and the better we understand that data – the better we will be able to make informed decisions for ourselves.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=5207

 

[shuttlt]

Some people believe that mobile phones are harmful because they believe they suffer from electrosensitivity.

In a lot of these discussions, sceptics falsely assume that it's the carrier wave people are concerned about. The power levels and frequency make it a bit hard to see how this could be the case. Often it turns out that it's the "artificial" signal - the data itself - that people blame. Then it all gets muddled with a vibration explanation for homeopathy. The natural vibrations of the cell gets corrupted by the artifical vibrations of your phone call and you get cancer. Cure your cold with the vibrational essence of blah blah blah magically transfered to a sugar pill.

 

[Perpetual Student]

With everyone using cellphones these days, there must be a catastrophic, and exponential surge of brain cancer cases. Has anyone, at all, demonstrated this? Has there really been a surge of brain cancer cases since the 80's?
MrQ

No, but there has been a surge in obesity. Could it be...?

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

Correct me if i'm wrong but don't microwaves work because their frequency causes water molecules to vibrate and heat via friction?

Do the microwaves coming out of a cell phone hit or maintain at that specific frequency?

 

[KingMerv00]

In a lot of these discussions, sceptics falsely assume that it's the carrier wave people are concerned about. The power levels and frequency make it a bit hard to see how this could be the case. Often it turns out that it's the "artificial" signal - the data itself - that people blame. Then it all gets muddled with a vibration explanation for homeopathy. The natural vibrations of the cell gets corrupted by the artifical vibrations of your phone call and you get cancer. Cure your cold with the vibrational essence of blah blah blah magically transfered to a sugar pill.

This paragraph doesn't make any scientific sense.

 

[CurtC]

Correct me if i'm wrong but don't microwaves work because their frequency causes water molecules to vibrate and heat via friction?

Do the microwaves coming out of a cell phone hit or maintain at that specific frequency?

A water molecule has regions that are more positively charged, and others that are more negative. IIRC, the areas around the two hydrogen atoms are more negatively charged, and the oxygen in the middle is more positive. A microwave oven, which puts out an electromagnetic field that switches directions about 2.4 billion times per second, causes those water molecules to wiggle back and forth, simply due to the EM field pushing and pulling on the molecule's positive and negative charges. And of course, heat in a material is simply its molecules wiggling around - therefore wiggling the water molecules *is* generating heat.

And it's not just water molecules - it's any molecule that has more positive and more negatively charged regions. For example, plates that are not "microwave-safe" are made of molecules like this, so the microwaves heat the plates.

A popular misconception is that water molecules have a resonance at the frequency of microwave ovens, but that's not true. It's not the specific frequency that heats up water - it's just that it's in a decent range and there's a lot of power from the oven.

 

[Emet]

A water molecule has regions that are more positively charged, and others that are more negative. IIRC, the areas around the two hydrogen atoms are more negatively charged, and the oxygen in the middle is more positive. A microwave oven, which puts out an electromagnetic field that switches directions about 2.4 billion times per second, causes those water molecules to wiggle back and forth, simply due to the EM field pushing and pulling on the molecule's positive and negative charges. And of course, heat in a material is simply its molecules wiggling around - therefore wiggling the water molecules *is* generating heat.

And it's not just water molecules - it's any molecule that has more positive and more negatively charged regions. For example, plates that are not "microwave-safe" are made of molecules like this, so the microwaves heat the plates.

A popular misconception is that water molecules have a resonance at the frequency of microwave ovens, but that's not true. It's not the specific frequency that heats up water - it's just that it's in a decent range and there's a lot of power from the oven.

Okay, thanks for that.

Now, can you tell me how to set the clock on my microwave oven?

 

[KingMerv00]

A water molecule has regions that are more positively charged, and others that are more negative. IIRC, the areas around the two hydrogen atoms are more negatively charged, and the oxygen in the middle is more positive.

Reverse that. Oxygen is negative, hydrogen is positive.