Cell phones do NOT cause brain tumors
Image by Getty Images via Daylife
At least not in Scandinavia, according to a recent (December 3) article in the Journal for the National Cancer Institute.
Dr. Isabelle Deltour and colleagues analyzed 60,000 patients aged 20–79 from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, diagnosed between 1974 and 2003 with gliomas and meningiomas. They found incidence rates of these tumors over the 30-year period stable, decreased, or continued a gradual increase that started before the introduction of cell phones. They did a separate analysis of the 1998-2003 period when cell phone use exploded and found no change in tumor incidence.
And then this appears in the SF Examiner:
Every cell phone sold in San Francisco could soon come with a label detailing the level of radiation you will be exposed to by using it and recommending a headset to avoid radiation exposure.
Another opportunity for a needless law, another opportunity to expand the ambient state of fear.
CELL PHONES EMIT ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION!!!
Ooh, scary. But as this graph shows, so does your bedside lamp – visible light is electromagnetic radiation. So are x-rays and gamma rays and radiowaves and microwaves.
Cell phones work on microwaves which have long wavelengths. I’m unaware of any experiment where microwaves demonstrated the ability to damage DNA. Because, simply put, that’s what you have to do to start a tumor: You must induce a mutation in a cell’s DNA. Gamma rays and x-rays, at the opposite end of the wavelength chart, can do that – they are proven carcinogens because their ionizing properties create free radicals. Microwaves are not ionizing. They lack the power to break chemical bonds, and you can’t create free radicals without breaking chemical bonds.
That’s why the Scandinavian results are not a surprise. Look at those figures: 60,000 patients over a 30-year period and no upward trend in brain tumors.
A cell phone will kill you if it distracts you at the wrong moment while driving, or you’re – sheesh – texting behind the wheel, but as for causing a tumor in your head? No evidence.
More on True/Slant Right Now
-
-
Related streams
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
Thanks for posting this. I’d only heard anecdotal information about this, so it’s nice to bump into an actual analysis of the data.
I agree that it’s a waste-of-energy law. Why not let cellphone over-users suffer or not as they choose, and focus on laws that protect potential victims of distracted drivers?
It’s obvious to discredit a study from the backyard of Nokia stating that there’s no danger from cell phones, but there has been enough research on this to reassure most people, and using a headset seemed to be the solution all along.
Next study: does Bluetooth cause tumors?
Or do people more likely to develop brain tumors spend more time on their cell phones?
There’s a theory (or maybe a postulate) out there that men who carry cell phones in their pocket have lower sperm counts. This could be. Microwaves generate heat and heat reduces sperm counts. But a low sperm count is a far cry from a tumor.
Computers and monitors put out a broth of electromagnetic radiation at various frequencies. I think if the very low levels of radio waves put out by cell phones, we’d have seen the skyrocketing tumor rates from the last 30 years of PC use by now.
And why have police officers,with their walkie-talkies and car radios the last 40+ years, not to mention truckers with their 5-Watt CB radios, which put out far more sheer WATTS of radio emissions than any cellphone ever, not been dropping like flies?
Because it was always a stupid idea. Hard-working researchers nonetheless must go about proving it over and over (this must be the third debunking I’ve read in 10 years) because these legends won’t die off.
As for low sperm counts, you can get way more warming of the two small but important globes by wearing briefs instead of boxers.
By the way, let’s not even start on all the tens of thousands of people who work in offices right under AM and FM and TV broadcast towers pumping out 50,000 watts.
Argh.
The phrase “spurious correlation” comes to mind. I’m waiting for the study that relates GPS signals to obesity, diminishing IQ, or increasing inability to maintain one’s privacy in a public forum.
In response to another comment. See in context »I certainly hope you’re right. But, to devil’s advocate-
1. While these other household items do give off radiation, people don’t spend all day with their bed lamp held up close to their heads.
2. the studies referenced happen to come from the very countries that are the world leaders in cel phone production and would have the most to lose were people to stop using them (not that this is likely to happen.)
3. There are credible brain surgeons and other physicians who believe that cel phones MIGHT cause such a problem.
4. While I think that San Francisco is overdoing it, it isn’t going to hurt anyone to use an earpiece.
5. Why are you so comfortable so affirmatively stating that cel phones do NOT cause brain tumors based on one study when maybe they do and maybe they don’t. Nobody should yet be so certain about this and, in the chance that maybe you’re wrong, where’s the upside?
“There are credible brain surgeons and other physicians who believe that cel phones MIGHT cause such a problem.”
Belief is not science, Rick (unless you’re into creationism). No matter what one believes, no one’s been able to form a free radical with microwaves. They can fry you, but they don’t cause tumors. And the “one study” I’m citing involves 60k cancer victims over a 30-year period.
I never say never in science, but cut away te junk science and the evidence points the other way.
BTW, this EMF thing is an old controversy. Check out the David Bodeur debacle back in the 80s and 90s. It cost taxpayers $25 billion to disprove his unfounded assertions.
In response to another comment. See in context »No one with a good understanding of the physics of electromagnetic waves believes that cell phones could cause cancer. Some physicians do, but this is because physics is not as big a part of physicians’ education (let alone the general public’s) as it should be. The result is that people get confused by the word “radiation.”
In response to another comment. See in context »As stated in the article, it takes a certain threshold of energy to break chemical bonds. Energy in EM waves is determined by the wavelength: the shorter the wavelength, the higher the energy. Microwave wavelength is measured in centimeters. By contrast, visible light wavelength is on the order of half a micrometer. Unless you are constantly in a completely dark room, your body is absorbing millions of times more energy from radiation than a cell phone emits, just from ambient light. You don’t have to be holding a bed lamp up to your head; if there is light enough to see, you are already subject to more radiation than your cell phone could ever emit. And since all objects around room temperature emit infrared radiation, even a completely dark room wouldn’t be enough: it would have to be very cold as well in order for your cell phone to count as a significant source of radiation.
That doesn’t really matter though, because chemical bonds aren’t broken if the wavelengh is above a certain threshold, and visible, infrared, and microwave light are very well above that threshold. And since the breaking of chemical bonds in DNA is a necessary precursor to tumor creation, there is no reason to believe that cell phones could cause cancer and plenty of reason not to.
And just in case you were wondering, microwave ovens work by vibrating water molecules to create thermal energy. Even if your cell phone used that part of the microwave spectrum, which it doesn’t, the result would simply be heat, not cancer.