Cancer and smartphones: Anyone worry about "always on" data and keeping phone in pocket?

[Bob Maxey]

I think this is a very interesting topic. I am concerned about the long term effects of using mobile phones as much as we do these days. I hope the people who are confident that there are no adverse effects are correct, but I would really like to see some high quality scientific studies that provide solid evidence to support this hypothesis.

Indeed, me too. Not too sure where one would find the numbers, however.

About all I can go by are the things we learn as hams. From transmitter and antenna safety to allowable RF limits. Some of us use high power mobile rigs with easy access to antenna connections. Some of us use microwaves (Gunn Oscillators) and that represents potential issues as well.

I was looking at a huge linear amp just last week that is rated at 1,500 watts PEP. That is a considerable amount of power flowing through an easy to touch connector. I am more concerned with that than my little Droid Phone.

I would like to know about the effects of vast quantities of cell phones. Anyone read any data to support the idea that perhaps with thousands of emitters out there all around you, there might be an issue?

Some portable radios put out far more power than my phone and still, I refuse to worry. Then again, there is always Morse code or my old teletype.

Bob Maxey

 

[EarlyMon]

Cell Phones and Cancer Risk - National Cancer Institute

I tend to believe that these studies are driven by lawyers and the media.

There's never been any scientific basis for the claim that cell phones pose danger - just claims.

But, studying whether this can happen does create jobs, so there is that.

The jury is not still out this.

 

[barely_legal_lover]

Let's be honest here... even if it was proven tonight, that cell phones cause cancer for sure.... nobody on here would give them up. They would continue using them and allow loved ones to sue later...even though they all knew it caused cancer. People in general, proved that already when they knew cigs caused cancer but still smoked

 

[jbk317]

I guarantee, for any product you can dream up, I can find a danger associated with it.

Some things represent dangers. I smoke cigars and I am certain they cause some harm. I will accept the risk and I do not expect your tax dollars to save me. That said, there is no conclusive proof that cigars will kill me. Just lots of questionable reports and faulty science on both sides of the argument.

We can match scientific “proof” and reports all day long and still find no agreement.

I believe last week, Rush Limbaugh reported that some congress woman or senator announced that without any doubt whatsoever, a single cigarette will kill you. That is BS, naturally. We must deal with guesses these days and in some cases, regulation and taxes are shoveled upon people that use a product with little scientific proof that the item is dangerous.

I recall the big EPA report that many anti-smoking supporters often quote. I’ll try to locate a copy if there is interest, so PM me if there is interest. The last section revealed the EPA finding that second hand smoke likely does not represent a problem for non-smokers.

But, I digress. Look, you might not like “Scientific Proof” but it is all we have. Proof changes and we always learn that what was once ok is now dangerous then later it is discovered to be not as dangerous as the last study suggests.

Smokers, behave yourself. Do not smoke where it bothers people and do not toss your GD butts on the ground.

Bob Puff Puff Maxey

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with scientific proof. Proof does not exist in science. As a bland example, gravity is a “theory” (and yes I know what that means), albeit one with overwhelming facts and evidence to support it, it is not proven in the sense you think it is. The same goes for things that “cause” cancer. All we have are pieces of evidence. When mice are exposed to the same types of radiation emitted from cell phones for long periods of time, they develop a specific type of tumor (edit: actually it is DNA damage, see my later post). Mechanisms may be isolated and a hypothesis developed, but there is no way to prove anything. Again, we have an agent, an association, and a link.

The same goes for cigarettes. You are absolutely correct in that it has not been “proven” that they cause cancer. However people who smoke or have been for long periods of time, more often than not, have been known to develop lung cancer at much higher rates. Subsequently, studies are conducted to isolate specific factors to show a connection between an agent in cigarette smoke and chromosomal mutation (which leads to cancer). And sure enough, one was found (again – still not proof).

If a connection is found in multiple studies, an association or link can be made. Its nothing more than that. Science can’t give us anything else. It is your decision whether or not the evidence is valid and relevant. And like the connection between smoking and lung cancer, more often than not, the link between the agent and its association is usually rather valid.

Whether or not cigars will "kill you" is an entirely different issue. One that depends on your own body's tolerance for change. Just because a person survives a lifetime of carcinogen inhalation does not mean the item is not carcinogenic. It simply means that his body was able to overcome the environmental stresses extremely well, and some people are able to do that. Everyone is wired differently.

(PS – Controlled human studies with cancer causing agents are rather difficult to conduct for obvious reasons. At this time all we have are case reports. But it has only been about [maximum] 20 years since cell phones entered widespread use, probably more like 15 years. For some people that is enough time to create complications, but for the majority of people it is not.)

 

[EarlyMon]

When mice are exposed to the same types of radiation emitted from cell phones for long periods of time, they develop a specific type of tumor. Mechanisms may be isolated and a hypothesis developed, but there is no way to prove anything. Again, we have an agent, an association, and a link.

Citation please.

 

[jbk317]

Some things represent dangers. I smoke cigars and I am certain they cause some harm. I will accept the risk and I do not expect your tax dollars to save me.

...also,

although you may have accepted the risk, what about your children? Other family members? And if someone with that mindset should happen to develop serious complications, don't think the cost of your care will be covered solely by your health insurance payments. Not even close. The cost of the first round of chemotherapy for leukemia is $500,000. Who pays for that? Everyone.

 

[jbk317]

Citation please.

Of course. I should have included it in the original response.
However I did skip a step and I apologize for confusion, it has been quite a while since I read the article (the original article came out in 1994). To clarify, what was found in the study was that the radiation caused DNA damage and not tumor formation. You may think this is a big deal, but it really is not. DNA damage is the foundation of most, if not all, tumor formation. The fact that that rats did not develop actual tumors could be due to a number of factors such as time, fate of the rats after the study is completed, or features of the rat that are species specific (I am purely speculating).

Please note: I am, in a way, playing devil's advocate here. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am simply trying to raise awareness about the possibility for the existence of the issue and for people to not brush it under the carpet.

Original research:
Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain ... [Environ Health Perspect. 2004] - PubMed result (for the entire article, click the greenish button in the upper right corner)

Hypothesized mechanisms:
Mobile phones, heat shock proteins and cancer - French - 2002 - Differentiation - Wiley Online Library (I can provide the entire article if desired)

News article:
Cell phone cancer risk debated

Take away message:
No one knows. Be cautious until we do.

 

[glockjs]

i remember back in the day getting a free headset from voicestream...yes voicestream...cause this was brought up back then and everybody was freakin out. i've had a cell phone in my pocket for almost 10 yrs now :O (remember the nokia's that you could change the faceplate on?? sooo kewl back in the day...soo kewl) as far as i know everything is all good x.O

got better things to worry about like what the hell they put in taco bell...i mean i know its bad....but its sooo good

 

[Bob Maxey]

Let's be honest here... even if it was proven tonight, that cell phones cause cancer for sure.... nobody on here would give them up. They would continue using them and allow loved ones to sue later...even though they all knew it caused cancer. People in general, proved that already when they knew cigs caused cancer but still smoked

There is a high tax on tobacco, so what's to say your monthly service costs would not go way up and suddenly, you could no longer afford a cell phone. If some one manages to prove that cell phones cause cancer, perhaps these additional costs and fees are absolutely justified.

Citing health reasons is why there are high taxes on smokes, so why not apply the same thing to cellphone users?

If it were discovered that phones cause cancer, the 500 bucks per month increase in your cellphone bill that might be required to help defray the vast numbers of lawsuits that we all know will arrive when/if it is discovered that your phone kills people might be fair.

You can bet that if it were PROVEN, lots of antismokers would be pissed off when the same logic they apply to smokers is applied to them and they start paying draconian taxes and fees.

Perhaps the angry smoker in me would say

 

[jbk317]

Perhaps the angry smoker in me would say

 

[barely_legal_lover]

to say there won't be a cell phone tax if people start believing that phones causes cancer is ridiculous.

History shows us that people will try to legislate protections against the public. Taxes are ways of doing that. And cigs are a perfect example of it.


How long before allowing your kids to use a cell phone (that people think causes cancer) will be looked down upon as scum of the earth, just like a parent who smokes in the car with their kids....?

It's amazing how many expectant mothers of the 50's smoked, and had 5-10 kids, yet i DARE an expectant mother to try and light a cig up in public today...

 

[jbk317]

to say there won't be a cell phone tax if people start believing that phones causes cancer is ridiculous.

It's a little more complex than that.
People will always try to get a tax put in place, or believe there should be one in place. The fear has already created the SAR limit. Thats is reasonable, but a tax is a completely different story. Do we have a major tax on alcohol? Fast food? Junk food? No. And why is marijuana illegal and not simply taxed? Tanning is now taxed, but if it is so harmful, why is it not illegal? The drug most likely to cause an OD death? Tylenol. Is that regulated?

There are a great deal of inconsistencies in legislation, and this is a topic that makes many people very confused, causing them to nap a while before they can continue to think about these issues.
There are so many things that people believe "cause" cancer:
Tupperware and saran wrap in the microwave
Excess folic acid
Charred meat (pyrobenzene)
Formaldehyde (used in kitchen cabinets)
Food preservatives
Dairy products (seriously)
Pesticides
Deodorant
Chemicals used to make carpets
Nitrosamines in processed meats
...and so many more

The ones that are regulated on some level today are because we have extensive evidence (case reports, epidemiological studies, laboratory research) to show their harmful effects. These include things like cigarette smoke, UV light, and asbestos.

For EVERYTHING else, for the things we don't have enough evidence about, the point is to remain cautious. That's it. Asbestos started out as a "belief" but look at how much we know about it today. There are things on that list that may very well (and most likely) be completely harmless, but there also might be a few that are much more hazardous than we ever thought.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Bob,
There is quite a difference between the link between smoking and lung cancer, and the link between cell phone use and brain tumors.

And no one is saying there should be a tax on cell phone use due its "possible" dangers. That would be absurd. We will only know of the real dangers of cell phones decades from now, when its questionable carcinogenic qualities could manifest themselves on large numbers of people. Until that data is available, or until multiple studies show overwhelming evidence of carcinogenic activity, there will be difficulty implementing a tax.

I agree, but the post I responded to specifically asked what if there was proof that they cause cancer. I posted that if this were proven, the costs would go way up. We smokers

 

[Bob Maxey]

It's a little more complex than that.
People will always try to get a tax put in place, or believe there should be one in place. The fear has already created the SAR limit. Thats is reasonable, but a tax is a completely different story. Do we have a major tax on alcohol? Fast food? Junk food? No. And why is marijuana illegal and not simply taxed? Tanning is now taxed, but if it is so harmful, why is it not illegal? The drug most likely to cause an OD death? Tylenol. Is that regulated?

There are a great deal of inconsistencies in legislation, and this is a topic that makes many people very confused, causing them to nap a while before they can continue to think about these issues.
There are so many things that people believe "cause" cancer:
Tupperware and saran wrap in the microwave
Excess folic acid
Charred meat (pyrobenzene)
Formaldehyde (used in kitchen cabinets)
Food preservatives
Dairy products (seriously)
Pesticides
Deodorant
Chemicals used to make carpets
Nitrosamines in processed meats
...and so many more

The ones that are regulated on some level today are because we have extensive evidence (case reports, epidemiological studies, laboratory research) to show their harmful effects. These include things like cigarette smoke, UV light, and asbestos.

For EVERYTHING else, for the things we don't have enough evidence about, the point is to remain cautious. That's it. Asbestos started out as a "belief" but look at how much we know about it today. There are things on that list that may very well (and most likely) be completely harmless, but there also might be a few that are much more hazardous than we ever thought.

You are correct, it is complicated. Reports and evidence is also difficult because we do not know if the research is valid. So we are stuck with reports that may be more sensationalistic than valid and laws based on that evidence that are unfair.

Consider the curious case of DDT. We know through testing that DDT is not that dangerous. It took a book by a rabid environmentalist (Silent Spring, Rachel Carson) to ban it from the world marketplace. Carson was not a scientist.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Bob,
There is quite a difference between the link between smoking and lung cancer, and the link between cell phone use and brain tumors.

And no one is saying there should be a tax on cell phone use due its "possible" dangers. That would be absurd. We will only know of the real dangers of cell phones decades from now, when its questionable carcinogenic qualities could manifest themselves on large numbers of people. Until that data is available, or until multiple studies show overwhelming evidence of carcinogenic activity, there will be difficulty implementing a tax.

But once a link is established --through legitimate scientific study or best guesses because some rat died--what happens next? I'll give you smoking. I can almost agree that it causes or could cause health issues. But the ban on smoking in privately owned establishments like bars or the high taxes based in part on second hand smoke came to pass without any absolute evidence that second hand smoke represents a true danger.

So it really matters little if cell phones are minor compared to tobacco. Once the link is established between cell phones and cancer, taxes and fees are one possible result.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

I think you are misunderstanding the issue with scientific proof. Proof does not exist in science. As a bland example, gravity is a

 

[Bob Maxey]

...also,

although you may have accepted the risk, what about your children? Other family members? And if someone with that mindset should happen to develop serious complications, don't think the cost of your care will be covered solely by your health insurance payments. Not even close. The cost of the first round of chemotherapy for leukemia is $500,000. Who pays for that? Everyone.

Well, you do not know me but we can handle the costs. Astounding insurance and a few dollars in the bank stem the tide of crushing hospital bills.

So what do you propose? Ban cigarettes? OK, what about the things you use? Do we ban phones if there is a causal link? Fast food perhaps? We know there is a link between fast food and health issues. How about pesticides or plastics, or cheese or deep fried foods? We can find links between lots of stuff and poor health. Do we start banning everything because it might cost the taxpayer some cash?

I suggest this: if I engage in risky behavior, I pay the costs.

Bob Maxey

 

[jbk317]

Proof does exist in science. Just today, I was preparing some PowerPoint slides on Ohm's Law. No arguments with this proof. So some proofs do exist. (Smiley)

If a smoker gets cancer, is it the smokes or is it something else? Perhaps all it takes in some people is a very brief exposure to something to start the process. Or perhaps once exposed to certain materials for a long time, one more exposure is all it takes to start the process. We do not know and likely will never know for sure.

Where we get into trouble is this: agendas that skew the scientific proof; case studies taken as fact, reports that are not accurate but confirm what many non-scientists assume is how it should be.

Not sure how to get around those problems, however. It is how it has always been.

Bob Maxey

Proof is a function of mathematics. So yes, you are correct in associating the word proof with Ohm's law. However that is not the type of science I am referring to when we talk about studies to reveal evidence about a particular biological or environmental mechanism.
Here is a piece regarding that: Common misconceptions about science I: ?Scientific proof? | Psychology Today

If cell phones and cancer became so tightly associated in the future, I don't think we would ever see a tax in place for the sole reason that they would be forced to become obsolete. Cigarettes are not a necessity in our daily lives, they are an addiction. Tobacco industries don't feel the need to develop a "safer" cigarette - so there is a tax and we can leave it at that. However, cell phones and mobile communication are somewhat of a necessity to our society (although earlier generations may disagree). For that reason, if the cell phone cancer issue escalated, I believe the government would fund, or at least help out as much as possible, the search for new and safer (however long that label lasts) cell phone technology much in the same way that alternatives to gasoline are being developed.

 

[jbk317]

So what do you propose? Ban cigarettes? OK, what about the things you use? Do we ban phones if there is a causal link? Fast food perhaps? We know there is a link between fast food and health issues. How about pesticides or plastics, or cheese or deep fried foods? We can find links between lots of stuff and poor health. Do we start banning everything because it might cost the taxpayer some cash?

I suggest this: if I engage in risky behavior, I pay the costs.

Bob Maxey

Either way I believe that if we can find a link between something and cancer in the same fashion as cigarette smoke and asbestos, then yes, I think there needs to be heavy regulation. Maybe not an actual ban, but major reduction in use. I don't quite know what that means.

In regards to fast food, something needs to be done. The number one cause of death in the US is due to cardiovascular disease. You tell me what cause most, stressing most, cases of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes (I know its not a CVD, but still a major issue), etc. Most cases can easily be prevented by an appropriate lifestyle/eating habits.
Now I have no idea how to go about regulated food. I would love to have a discussion on it though, for I fear the only way to reverse America's obesity rates and subsequent major health complications is to PREVENT the issues in the first place, not simply treat them. When people have the attitude that they are prepared for the consequences when in reality they are not, EVERYONE suffers. But the bigger issue is ignorance about unhealthy habits. You understand the danger, which is more than can be said for a lot of people.

Well, you do not know me but we can handle the costs. Astounding insurance and a few dollars in the bank stem the tide of crushing hospital bills.

Are you implying here that you have the means to cover hospital bills out of pocket? Even one that may be as much $500,000 (which is still only the first round). If this is what you are saying, then wonderful. But you are certainly the minority.

 

[ekyle]

Honestly, I think that if it had the capability to cause cancer it would do some other things... down there. Kind of like that laptop farce people were spreading around. I've had a phone in my pocket/on my hip since I was 14 (so 9 years) and have two healthy kids I'm using that for my basis of whether or not it is really a problem.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Honestly, I think that if it had the capability to cause cancer it would do some other things... down there. Kind of like that laptop farce people were spreading around. I've had a phone in my pocket/on my hip since I was 14 (so 9 years) and have two healthy kids I'm using that for my basis of whether or not it is really a problem.

The problem is cancer takes time to develop. If you smoke a single cigarette, chances are you will not suffer for it. Then again, perhaps in some people, all it takes is one cigarette to start the ball rolling.

We do not know for sure and that is why this is an issue. When studies are done, some people cry cover-up. If we ignore it, people start asking why we ignored it and lawsuits are filed, so costs go way up.

Perhaps a Surgeon General

 

[jbk317]

so let's legislate people because they aren't capable of making the right decisions, huh? Big govt rulezzzzz


I eat fast food, and cholesteral is in check, I'm in better shape than a majority of my graduating class (coming up on 20 year reunion) Just because your genetics makes eating fast food a bad thing, doesn't mean it harms me the same way, so I shouldn't be regulated.


During my college days, there were months at a time I ate fast food everyday. Never gained a pound and still competed at a college level in sports.

So I don't care if cell phones cause cancer or not... what makes you think you should regulate me?

Do we legislate people when they drink and drive? Steal? These people are not making the right decisions. It is simply acceptable today to make a wrong decision as long as the only person being harmed is yourself. Yet in reality far more people are being harmed, just not immediately.

You, my friend are very fortunate, and certainly not the rule. You happen to possess an efficient way to compensate for stress - for the time being.
Look at these numbers: Obesity and Overweight for Professionals: Data and Statistics: U.S. Obesity Trends | DNPAO | CDC
Take a few minutes to really internalize these numbers. It's simply embarrassing. Even more remarkable is the rate at which these numbers grow.
Unhealthy lifestyles and improper eating habits are the primary culprit. This is effecting everyone - the cost of health insurance, care, complication management, impact on families.

Your college example is completely irrelevant. Most college students could realistically pull that off. And the fact that you competed in college level sports makes it that much more believable that you didn't see adverse effects from that type of eating.

Still, you are relatively young (assuming you are in your early 40's - 20 years from college graduation?). So it is not inconceivable that you are currently healthy. Do you eat takeout/restaurant/fast food everyday now the way large portions of Americans do? Even if you do, you don't represent the majority.

These trends (obesity/diabetes rates) will continue inevitably until we develop new medications and techniques to prevent life threatening conditions which will simply affect health care in a cyclical manner.
Modern day life is being forced to adjust to change much faster than ever before. Cancer raters, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, and other preventible conditions (even psychological issues) will continue to rise and faster than we could ever imagine.
New technologies/treatments will keep life expectancy steady but at what cost?

Naivety and arrogance (from everyone) will keep these trends going strong.

 

[jbk317]

But the ban on smoking in privately owned establishments like bars or the high taxes based in part on second hand smoke came to pass without any absolute evidence that second hand smoke represents a true danger.

The ban on smoking in establishments is because the smoke pisses off other customers, not because of health reasons. Bars certainly don't care about their customers' health.

 

[mdram]

The ban on smoking in establishments is because the smoke pisses off other customers, not because of health reasons. Bars certainly don't care about their customers' health.

and banning it pisses off other customers. i do not go out much anymore because i can no longer smoke in bars.

its getting tot he point where people complain when you smoke on the smoking deck.

 

[mdram]

Either way I believe that if we can find a link between something and cancer in the same fashion as cigarette smoke and asbestos, then yes, I think there needs to be heavy regulation. Maybe not an actual ban, but major reduction in use. I don't quite know what that means.

In regards to fast food, something needs to be done. The number one cause of death in the US is due to cardiovascular disease. You tell me what cause most, stressing most, cases of high blood pressure, high cholesterol, type 2 diabetes (I know its not a CVD, but still a major issue), etc. Most cases can easily be prevented by an appropriate lifestyle/eating habits.
Now I have no idea how to go about regulated food. I would love to have a discussion on it though, for I fear the only way to reverse America's obesity rates and subsequent major health complications is to PREVENT the issues in the first place, not simply treat them. When people have the attitude that they are prepared for the consequences when in reality they are not, EVERYONE suffers. But the bigger issue is ignorance about unhealthy habits. You understand the danger, which is more than can be said for a lot of people.

the problem with obesity is not the food its the people
years ago people did not sit in front of the tv/comp all day/night
they actual did physical activities. they new what the sun was.
kids played outside and came home when the street lights came on
today we have a couch, remote control,pizza delivery. microwave ovens ect.

yeah its the food. keep beleiving that