This week Dr. Ronald Heberman -- director of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and UPMC Cancer Center -- released a memo warning staff and faculty of health risks that may be connected with cell phone use. In May researchers from UCLA and Denmark analyzing data from a vast 13,000 person study reported cell phone use in pregnancy seriously elevated the risk of behavioral problems and diagnoses. In March an award-winning UK neurosurgeon warned that the impact of brain cancer associated with mobile phones may be more dangerous than asbestos and smoking. In January a study sponsored by the cell phone industry itself found cell phone radiation delays and reduces sleep and causes headaches and confusion. Last October, the journal Occupational Environmental Medicine published findings that people who have had the phones for a decade or more are twice as likely to get a malignant tumour on the side of the brain where they hold the handset.
The scientists who conducted the research say using a mobile for just an hour every working day during that period is enough to increase the risk - and that the international standard used to protect users from the radiation emitted is "not safe" and "needs to be revised".
What to do? Well, last September the European Environment Agency called for immediate action to reduce exposure to Wi-Fi, cell phones, and cellular masts. A few weeks before, Germany's Environment Ministry warned citizens to avoid using Wi-Fi and use landlines instead of mobile phones. Earlier in 2007 the French government "warned against use of mobile phones, esecially in children". Just a Western Europe thing? Nope.
The Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection says that use of the phones by both pregnant women and children should be "limited".
Remember Dr Heberman? He directs the University of Pittsburgh's [National Cancer Institute (NCI) - designated] Comprehensive Cancer Center. Along with twenty-one other international experts, he drafted The Case For Precaution In Cell Phone Use: the report released on Wednesday.
The report gives us ten practical recommendations to reduce cell phone risks:
Practical Advice to Limit Exposure to Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted from Cell Phones
1. Do not allow children to use a cell phone, except for emergencies. The developing organs of a fetus or child are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields.
2. While communicating using your cell phone, try to keep the cell phone away from the body as much as possible. The amplitude of the electromagnetic field is one fourth the strength at a distance of two inches and fifty times lower at three feet. Whenever possible, use the speaker-phone mode or a wireless Bluetooth headset, which has less than 1/100th of the electromagnetic emission of a normal cell phone. Use of a hands-free ear piece attachment may also reduce exposures.
3. Avoid using your cell phone in places, like a bus, where you can passively expose others to your phone's electromagnetic fields.
4. Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body at all times. Do not keep it near your body at night such as under the pillow or on a bedside table, particularly if pregnant. You can also put it on "flight" or "off-line" mode, which stops electromagnetic emissions.
5. If you must carry your cell phone on you, make sure that the keypad is positioned toward your body and the back is positioned toward the outside so that the transmitted electromagnetic fields move away from your rather than through you.
6. Only use your cell phone to establish contact or for conversations lasting a few minutes, as the biological effects are directly related to the duration of exposure.
For longer conversations, use a land line with a corded phone, not a cordless phone, which uses electromagnetic emitting technology similar to that of cell phones.7. Switch sides regularly while communicating on your cell phone to spread out your exposure. Before putting your cell phone to the ear, wait until your correspondent has picked up. This limits the power of the electromagnetic field emitted near your ear and the duration of your exposure.
8. Avoid using your cell phone when the signal is weak or when moving at high speed, such as in a car or train, as this automatically increases power to a maximum as the phone repeatedly attempts to connect to a new relay antenna.
9. When possible, communicate via text messaging rather than making a call, limiting the duration of exposure and the proximity to the body.
10. Choose a device with the lowest SAR possible (SAR = Specific Absorption Rate, which is a measure of the strength of the magnetic field absorbed by the body). SAR ratings of contemporary phones by different manufacturers are available by searching for "sar ratings cell phones" on the internet.
What motivates Dr. Heberman to and his peers to warn us? According to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette story:
"Recently I have become aware of the growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer," Dr. Ronald Herberman said in the memorandum. "Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use."
[snip]
A child's developing organs "are the most likely to be sensitive to any possible effects of exposure," according to the document.
Will every single clinician agree with the findings and suggestions of the EU's Environment Agency, Germany's Environment Agency, the Russian Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation, the UCLA/Denmark researchers, the top UK neurosurgeon
who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers [and] reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones,
the study published in Occupational Environmental Medicine, and the twenty-one international experts who this week joined Dr. Heberman in releasing Important Precautionary Advice Regarding Cell Phone Use?
Nope. As The Secret History Of The War On Cancer reveals, tobacco, benzene, asbestos, and a host of other lethal toxins were known to be deadly decades before the entire scientific community acknowledged the risks. Of course, the fact many of the holdouts were paid to hold out -- some by the same PR/manipulation megacorps Big Carbon now pays to obstuct global warming solutions -- explains why the wait for "consenus" can be deadly.
Fortunately, the precautionary principle points out we needn't wait for a consensus that may never come (until the checks stop coming). We can -- and should -- act to protect ourselves and our families when technologies appear to be harming us. With cell phones, there's a wealth of experimental evidence describing mechanisms through which cell phone signals change the biology of living creatures. The studies and findings above describe apparent health risks. And that's enough to satisfy the precautionary principle.
Do we have to wait for the American Cancer Society? Nope. The Secret History Of The War On Cancer describes how the ACS delayed making public information about tobacco's dangers, and has been largely MIA in fighting the known environmental (read: chemical) causes of our cancer epidemic. Of course, the fact many of the Big Pharma firms that support the ACS are connected with the Big Chemical firms that market the carcinogens may have something to do with this.
Do we have to wait until everyone in the blogosphere stops raising objections to the findings above? Nope. As we learned when Jordan Barab hosted David Michaels here in Book Salon to discuss Michael's book Doubt Is Their Product, industry depends on many epidemiologists and other "experts" in industry and academia to raise spurious questions in order to kill new regulations. Until you know where the "expert" weighing in makes their money, you can't know who they serve: industry, or your health.
We can act now. Dr. Heberman's prescription is a good place to start.
Be well.
[photo: VivaAntartica]
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
Aloha, Doc!
Who would believe that giant American companies would sell products that endanger their customers? That could never happen, right?
Can you hear me now?
kirk!
Oh, boy. And I cancelled my land line to teach AT&T a lesson.
Dr. Kirk!
I wish you well, also.
See, one of the advantages to living on the edge is I choose not to have a cell phone. That and buying natural ingredients and cooking and baking most of our food here.
Sady, I know a lot of people battling cancer right now. Even my dog’s girlfriend dog has cancer. And, the human she lives with. With everything else going on, the health of our nation needs to be lifted up.
(At least, the new hands-free only cell phone use law recently in force has prolly, okay, maybe reduced some cell phone activity in CA.)
I suppose this is one way to rid the planet of humans.
My guess is the biggest health risk from cell phone use is still from wrapping one’s car around a tree because of chattering on the phone while driving. That, or being the pedestrian or motorist they flatten through inattention.
I saw that you had made that decision. What next? tin cans? telepathy?
I hate the things and rarely use mine and only on speaker phone.
I can imagine this like 9.11 exposure the workers and local residents had… no prob. get back to work and now 50% of them have respiratory disease and many have died prematurely.
I pity the people who feel they need to use them all day long. Brain cancer? Ick
Wow.
Yeah. My daughter got hit while she was checking the mail. Fortunately, she’s okay. I like the new law here in CA.
Cell phone and email!!!
Good for you Kirk. And won’t it be nice when curtailing the use of cell phones stops the constant need to be connected to work or whatevah. Turn off the phones!!!!!!! Stop talking. Rest. damn it.
Corporate America with their better living through chemistry and technology is killing after robbing us.
And I thought I was the only one who felt that way.
;)
I’m glad to hear she’s OK.
I walk to work, and I won’t cross streets in front of talker-drivers unless they’ve come to a full stop at the light and I’ve made eye contact with them. I’ve had to wait through lights a few times to be on the safe side, but better late than run over.
i mostly use speaker phone also, mainly because i can hear it better. maybe i’ve already got a tumor in my ear!
Aloha, CT!
Teddy, who could have anticipated America’s beloved telcos would ever act contrary to our best interests?
Hi Suz!
Bummer, Loo Hoo :(
Demi, though I have to have a cell phone, I go out of my way not to use it (or carry it next to my body)
Elliot, it sure will cull a lot of us.
SamFromUtah - welcome! I don’t recall seeing you here before, and I’m always glad to see a new face here. The precautionary principle suggests we address all relevant risks associated with specific technologies. From this perspective, both the adverse impact of cell phone use on drivery attention (and hence safety) and the direct adverse effects of cell phone signals deserve our attention…beause we and our families deserve to be safe and healthy.
i finally got off my tushkie today and went down to the verizon store and got a bluetooth headset for my cellphone. glad to know that it has much less risk than the actual cell (and that i avoided all the guilt from not doing it and then reading this post)
also, i love to drive up next to people who are driving while on the cell phone and scream out “hang up and drive you moron!”
My niece told me about these videos. Can’t tell whether they are hoaxes or real, but they sure scared the crap out of me!
Let’s talk about it.
Hi skippy! Hope you are tumor free. For those who must use the things, the Bluetooth (or other remote) devices that act as speaker phones (not the headsets) appear to be least risky….
Oh, that was you?!?
:) just kidding skippy.
if those are the “popcorn” videos, they are ad company creations….
Any old time. Call me, I don’t have a cell phone.
I completely agree. In our city, everyone is driving and talking. Makes me nuts; either they are going very slow and/or not paying attention and yakking. I have looked for the “Shut Up & Drive” sign, but not found it. So I have to shake my fist at the driver;)
Really? That’s good to know! Why on earth… ads for what?
Hi, Dr. Murphy, and thanks. I’ve been reading FDL for years, but I don’t post much.
My comment was meant mostly as a darkish joke, and I didn’t carry it off too well, sorry. I agree that all the risks are worth looking at, and I’m glad in the light of your report that I don’t use a cell phone very much.
Good for you…what kind of reaction do you get?
Kirk can we have a diary and 9.11 illnesses? So many people are really sick and not just the rescue workers. The amount of toxins that people in the area had to breathe is staggering and Christy told us the air was safe to breathe.
This is an enormous problem here in NYC which is not being told.
road rage would be my guess revdeb
Rest. damn it.
Twist my arm.
Nah, I’ll just do it anyway, since it’s you and all.
Illegal now in CA I think.
yep. We weren’t designed (didn’t evolve) to have coonstant interruptions from electronic technology. For example, exposure to TV watching in the first year or two of life appears to alter brain wave patterns (during use). The long term-consequences (if any) aren’t clear — but the phenomonon alone scares me.
SanderO, I fear your anology with 9.11 is all too apt. The same Occupational Environmental Elist (from Gary Greenburg at Duke) where I read about cell phone risks had posts within a day (hours?) of the Towers’ fall describing exactly the expected (and now observed) pulmonary consequences of inhaling the dust.
Being a physician who cares about the environemnt and public health is often like watching train wrecks happen over decades….
When are we getting our functionality back for Firefox? Anyone know?
hehe. I did too.
if you are talking about the new comments notification, the tech crew is aware of it.
Illegal now in CA I think.
I’ve been wondering for a while now whether there’s a law in Indiana requiring that if you’re female and driving an automobile, you’re *required* to have a cell phone to your ear.
(ducking)
The lead, the mercury, other heavy metals from computers, the asbestos settled over lower Manhattan, tons of toxins suspended in the air.
It’s unbelievable that the government cannot be sued for lying about the air quality after the collapse.
My show text doesn’t work either
A wireless headset manufacturer. I hope they go broke from a boycott. Getting this info clearly is not easy: their freaking viral ad campaign just helps the wireless industry discredit the accurate biomedical info.
Sigh.
yeap… all part and parcel of the same issue that they are working on.
Really! Because what the hell are all those people saying? Hi, I’m stuck on the freeway. What ‘r u doin’? Yeah…blah blah blah.
They ain’t saving the world, I’ll tell you that.
ok girls. Lets get this guy once and for all. Ready!!!?!!!
I’m surprised that Jane hasn’t posted on this…
Particularly since she is quoted in it…
When I was working as a City architect I went into the electrical distribution bldg at our large international airport. There were tens of thousands of volts going thru. Every hair on my body stood on end and I became itchy. In the 1980’s Germany and other Euro nations banned fiberglass insulation for health resons. In the USA we have established numerous agencies to protect the people. They have all been co-opted by the corporations they were meant to regulate and are now about as worthless as breasts on a boar hog.
ding!
The EPA adminstrator (Whitman, IIRC) misled millions. Many folks on the OEM list were appalled. Media did not seem to want to hear accurate info re bad news…and a few docs don’t have the clout the EPA administrator has with the press and public opinion. Whoever gave Whitman the false assurances did a terrible thing….
much the folks who have blithely assured us all that cell phone and Wi-Fi couldn’t possibly affect us.
hey now - and I’ve got a video with your name on it for later.
Dang.
I think it’s probably safe to say that, regardless of the truth about cellphones, we cannot depend on this government to tell us…. or help us. That’s the real tragedy.
Thanks, Kirk. Disinformation seems to rule more and more in life, donut?
The economy is really biting hard on every one except the uber rich and so this and the insanity of Irak are what everyone in the world knows about.
I suppose that this is what they want to fight over in the campaign and the constitution means little. We have accepted like sheep being treated like cattle by the airlines. We have no fight in us it seems and they are slowly turning the population into mindless bots who lust after sports, pop culture, high tech especially HD TV with nothing to view on it, and other nonsense. We’re #1 all right in stupidity.
foothillsmike and blub, i couldn’t agree with you more. the megacorps have hijacked much of the remaining regulatory/safety agencies — and they’ve done so under Dem and Rethug admins.
Mommybrain, glad to be of help. I’m hoping FDL and Indymedia and Source Watch/PR Watch can serve to inocualte at least some of us from the disinfo memes…
Jaaaayyyyyaaaaattte.
Kirk we here at the Lake can see that most of what comes out of a PR person, corporate, politcal, whatever is bound to be all lies. And that is how we receive “information” about the world - press releases from PR people.
And then of course we know that there is absolutely NO accountability for anyone in power, whether as CEOs or management in corporations, the brass in the military or the executive branch.
But of course if you sell a nickel bag of grass your life is ruined by our justice system and you can spend yrs in the system.
Oops.
Should have been:
lotsa men are now learning what it feels like to have been a woman who was told not to worry her pretty little head over troubles and let men deal with it.
the only current change made from that statement, which i heard as late as the 80’s, has been that it is no longer limited to just women - it is now the government’s attitude towards all americans.
In addition to cellphones, cordless phones and WiFi may be associated with significant risks.
Does anyone here use those technologies?
*raising hand* cordless phones, kirk
This one’s a hoax, thank doG, Loo Hoo. But, yeah, dang…
No worries! I’m glad you joined us tonight.
Nooooo, say it ain’t so about wifi, the boone of my existence! How far away should you be from a wireless router? Does the laptop/computer kill ya, too?
I watched a few vids about 9.11 yesterday and I am of the belief that this was not done by Al Qaeda but by someone with the knowledge and assistance of people within this country and government.
We are lied to constantly.
Healthcare workers have a high incident of cancer from the exposure of toxic chemotherapy drugs. Those workers who mix and administer were exposed to the chemicals. In the last hospital I worked in, five of my coworkers were diagnosed with various cancers, 4 with breast cancer and one with extensive brain tumors.
Medical Surveillance for Health Care Workers Exposed to Hazardous Drugs
Do you have Wifi if you use a laptop?
Ditto!
Any press is good press?
Please…
Just getting here. I’ve been hearing speculation for years about cell phones and health risks. The “I refuse to wear a leash” issue was enough for me to refuse to have one, and now I’ve profoundly glad I’ve used one once in my life.
Drive-by ‘evening, all-
I remember asking questions about cell-phone radiation and proximity to the brain and other organs in the late 80’s, early 90’s-and I was called a nut. Since I suspected that might indeed be true, I pretty much forgot about it. I can’t tell you how validated I feel, and I thank you for the post.
Dr
Off on the business of the Queen. See everybody later.
Laptops and desktops can emit significant EMF…..this is where the inverse-square law can be your friend.
if i had three hands, i’d have to raise them all: wifi (all the time - if my router counts), cordless phone (alot), cell phone (sometimes).
Hasn’t been proven that Police who used those radar guns to catch speeders and sat them in their laps had a high indent of genital cancers such testicular and others from exposure?
If you are connected to the net without a phone line (or other cord), yes. Even those physically connected (though phone line or cable) to the net can forget to turn off their wireless signal — as long as the wireless function is on, you have an active WiFi signal from your machine.
yikes!
In English, please?
I have a cordless phone, who here doesn’t? And, I spend a lot of time at the pc. Let’s not even talk about the microwave…
Yikes again.
Say what? Does this mean that I have to scrounge around in the system controls to turn off something I’ve never turned on? I’ve got nothing wireless connected to my computer. Is “wireless” an “always on” option that I have to turn off?
RonD, thanks for stopping in: glad to have been of use.
Welcome, Marion!
OT- So do you suppose the Mahdi army got together with al Maliki and whatever other groups and decided to let the Americans win so we’ll get the hell out of there?
So we are killing off our healthcare workers with exposure to toxic chemicals
And killing our Police and safety officers with exposure to radiation from the radar guns…
And we are allowing the exposure of our young to unlimited cell phone use with those unlimited minute plans AND it is SO yucky to use a wired headset (which I use)
And we are now going to deal with all the toxic chemicals and depleted uranium from Iraq for generations to come….
What a world…. what a world
I bought a phone with a cord about five years ago because I could never find the cordless. Girls…
Totally depends on the computer. Some (especially desktops) don’t have wireless capacity. Others (esp laptops) have built-in wireless. IF the dealer/manufacturer shipped the machine with the wireless capacity set “on”, the end-user’s machine can be “on” for wireless even if the end user doesn’t ever touch the setting.
ON an Apple machine, “internet connect” will let you change the settings….
I think of wireless as a laptop. A computer you can move around your house.
Anyone up for digging the post? I’d love to see word get around as widely as possible….
Puts me in mind of the Iranian hostages who were released pretty much simultaneously with St. Ronnie the Senile being inaugurated or elected president. But of course outside forces have NO influence on our free and fair elections…
For Windows Users…. Go to Start -> then Connect to -> show all connections then look for a wireless network, highlight it then right click. Click disable and that should turn off your wireless radio.
IBM computers select Function + F5 and turn off your radios…
Let me try.
WHEW! I’ve got a big old clunky desktop machine.
Not just girls. The prodigal son lost his cell phone. Guess where I ALWAYS find my cordless? And also guess how many calls I get? Freaking none unless it’s some jerk wanting to come give me some more cancer causing technology. Ha.
Good Gawd, what a bunch of drivel…!
Too bad Du had left the other thread… I’m sure he’d have a field day with that…! First and foremost, Badr was the primary bunch of extortionists and instigators of violence in Baghdad… I’m sorely disappointed with the Grey Lady with that garbage…
5 on digg now, Kirk.
dugg and sorry i neglected to mention it earlier doc
At my age, the damage is done. I don’t care if I die tomorrow, because the remainder of my years will be spent living in an RV or a tent once I lose my job, and that prospect (especially the tent) has little appeal.
Great depression? What’s coming will make 1929-41 look like good times.
Sadr, you mean?
Can you rent a room?
Thanks LooHoo and Suz!
Marion, congrats!
one more Yikes for ya….
Use to laptops my damage male fertility /a>
And Doc…. you got mail
No, I said Badr and I meant Badr, the Badr Brigades specifically… They were the militant wing of Hakim’s ISCI and are now integrated within the IAF and National Police… I won’t say that the Sadrists are innocent, but, the vast bulk of the Shi’ite on Shi’ite violence was brought on by the Badr Brigades…
I’d take an RV or a tent over the street.
Context and all.
My 100 was for ya, Loo Hoo…
I sure hope the job continues for you and you always have a roof over yuor head.
God bless us everyone. All of us who have, will have to share with those who don’t. We’ll make it together.
It’s not imminent, but it’s coming, for most of us.
It’s a big tent (no pun intended) but it’s 15 years old.
That’s why I say, the damage is done, and if I die tomorrow, I’ve done most of the things in life I wanted to do, and death would be welcome, even if not invited.
What’s that line from Mellencamp? “Oh yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill of livin’ is gone.”
I’m pretty close to that point.
Dugg, doc
Thanks, neuro. Welcome!
I got here a little late and lurked my way through the comments.
It’s good to be back in real time. *g*
I wish I could bellieve that, but the truth is, the vast majority of us will have less than the most impoverished people in the third world by the time Bushco and his allies like Nancy Pelosi get through with us.
by the way, great post, kirk
I’d heard rumors but this is the first real information I have seen re: toxic cell phones
Thanks, got it. Did I skim the article too quickly, or was that not mentioned???
Great - I just cancelled my landline - was tired of paying for both and I have to have a cell. Was costing me well over 100/mo for the two of them - plus another 40 for internet.
Now I’m wondering how the wireless signals from phone and computer are affecting how my brain works, or if it is making my ADHD worse.
just a little hiccup
That may be one truth. But, there are other truths. There are many good people too. And, we will help each other. We will.
just got a mySQL error stating a new post was up but it wasn’t…. hmmmm
Might be a bit of an overstatement.
See, everyone. We can’t believe everything we read, or fear.
Thanks katy. Good timing.
just a little hiccup - i’ve got my fingers and toes crossed that they are working on bringing back our bells and whistles
Fern, here’s a link to cell phones and concentration/sleep (both essential for optimal brain function)
No, you read the article right, what I’m pissed about is the way they skewed the article in the typical GZG, FCM(MSM) talking points… Where Sadr is the bogeyman and Maliki is the savior… Blatant misreporting of the true facts on the ground…
Good evening, Suzanne.
Good because trying to figure out what is the configuration settings of this new laptop and what are FDL missing bells & whistles…. been kind of aggravating…… FINALLY got youtube to pay with audio today….. have had it for a week…. grrrr
Dang, my reply button is not registering properly…
actually started putting my cell phone across the room when I sleep and I had better quality sleep. Elmore started doing the same and the same occurred….. firm believer in this ….
Do you really believe that? I can’t bring myself to. We have farther to fall than any people on the planet.
Hey Kirk, great post. Creepy. I’m reading it outloud to my kid and he says, what about my wireless controller for the XBox?
Crap.
We have so fucked up this world.
Oh, and put me down in the group who loathes cell phones, won’t have one, and is mightily sick of seeing everyone glued to phones. People! Unplug!
Or, maybe not.
hi demi
Good information. I use a bluetooth earpiece but have always carried the cell phone in my pocket. I’ll have to adjust. Ain’t “free enterprise” great.
Phyllis Culbert
San Antonio, TX
Maybe Turd Blossom with his constant Blackberry use might get his just rewards after all…! ;-)
battery side away from your body
Thanks, CarolynU. I don’t know about signal strength for the XBox controller. This fellow may.
Phyllis, so glad you found this useful….
thers is upstairs
oh yeah!!
well read this jayt
and then tell us all about it, btw, who’s car insurance rates are higher, males or females? (just asking /s)
Driver Hits, Kills Pedestrian While Texting, Police Say
so add me to the pile-on, you can’t duck low enough on this one.
I hate to disturb the stampede, but you might want to read this article from Respectful Insolence before you throw away all your electronics.
Wait a minute! This includes wifi? Oh, crap. My cell phone is usually in my purse, and I really don’t use it that much, so should be ok there.
My laptop is on my lap right now. Even when I’m on my desktop, the wireless router is right next to it. Yikes.
Further to fall - sure - but anyone who has less that the poorest people on the planet is probably dead.
Wow. This reminds me of the power line hysteria in the 80s. In Boulder the hippies wanted to put the power lines underground to protect people from the radiation. But the ground does not significantly attenuate electromagnetic radiation at 60 Hz and since underground power lines are closer to the surface than the overhead power lines they actually expose people to more radiation! (Which didn’t matter because the whole thing was bullshit anyway.) Anyway, it was funny.
Folks, thanks for joining in the discussion tonight!
rdosser, thanks so much for giving us the example from orac: an anonymous writer whose publication history and funding thus are hidden for us. Many libertarian opponents of regulation use that dodge: many PR apologists for industry do the same.
Thanks also for the example you’ve provided of using a false premise to indirectly impugn valid information regarding health consequences of new technologies. Nothing in the post suggested discarding cell phones; nor did Dr Heberman.
I’ve got dinner waiting — I’ll check back in on Sunday. Nice try.
Oh — you may want to choose your anonymous sources more carefully. orac misleads his loyal readers with the implication that the absence of ionizing radiation would invalidate concerns about mechanisms by which cell phones exert biological effects.
The following papers may help alleviate orac’s knowledge defecit:
A careful and informed reader with an interest in the topic would know of the multiple studies describing biological effects associated with exposure to cell phone/cordless phone signals.
Bon appetit.
Hi Captain Kirk! Thanks for the links. I’m skeptical of this stuff– this kind of study is hard to control and it’s hard to get conclusive results.
For example for the study about the blood-brain barrier at the link the comment begins with “The result is a complex picture, where some studies show effects on the blood-brain barrier, whereas others do not….”.
The comment for the study on pre-natal effects of cell phone use begins: “Exposure to cell phones prenatally-and, to a lesser degree, postnatally-was associated with behavioral difficulties such as emotional and hyperactivity problems around the age of school entry. These associations may be noncausal and may be due to unmeasured confounding….”
(I have bolded these quotes to draw your attention to them, not to shout.)
This is different from global warming in an important way: there is a physical reason to suspect that CO2 increases global warming: the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared light. It would be remarkable if increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere did not cause an increase in global warming. But in the case of low frequency and radio frequency electromagnetic radiation there is no physical reason to suspect that it can influence biological systems. Therefore I think we should be slow to jump to conclusions based on studies with mixed results.
Do you agree with that difference? I’m not saying that we should discount evidence, just that we should demand decisive evidence when an analysis of the physics leads us to believe that there should be no measurable effect of the radiation.
–Riesz
Oven’s not warmed up, so I had time to read your comment.
What risible misdirection: the use of sexist language (hysteria) and the tired rhetorical technique of setting up a straw man, and then appearing to refute the straw man (Denver hippies re the 60 hz power lines).
However, unless we somehow posit the Denver hippies have taken over:
the EU Environmental Ministry,
the German Environmental Ministry,
the Russian Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation,
researchers from UCLA and Denmark analyzing data from a vast 13,000 person study reported cell phone use in pregnancy seriously elevated the risk of behavioral problems and diagnoses,
the journal Occupational Environmental Medicine’s published findings that people who have had the phones for a decade or more are twice as likely to get a malignant tumour on the side of the brain where they hold the handset,
the January study sponsored by the cell phone industry itself that found cell phone radiation delays and reduces sleep and causes headaches and confusion,
the top UK neurosurgeon
who warned in March the impact of brain cancer associated with mobile phones may be more dangerous than asbestos and smoking,
the director of the U Pittsburgh Comprehensive Cancer Center and twenty-one of his colleagues around the world….
Unless we posit that, your straw man appeared to have died in vain.
After the next of kin are notified, please do share with us your specific critiques of the data and/or methodology used in the studies referenced in this comment and my preceding comment.
Unless, of course, no such substantiative factual basis supports your assertion.
Thanks for the pre-prandial laughs.
You’re right of course, and I apologize for the disrespectful tone of that comment. But what about my comment at #139? Do you agree that the studies are conflicted?
Roiesz, I was writing my 9:10 while your 9:05 went up. Thank you for raising substantiative factual questions in the 9:05 comment.
The studies cited in my earlier comment report both observations of changes in organismal function and changes in function/structure at “smaller” levels. The UCLA/Danish study of 13.000 found such functional effects.
I disagree with this assertion:
precisely because of the larger conclusions I cited in my mai post and many of the powerline citations (some of which were in my comment above, others of which I did not have time to type out).
Thanks you for addressing the topic of the post on a factual basis. I ‘ve a (delayed) dinner to atend to, but i will respond to these factual questions on Sunday morning.
Dr. Murphy, you’ve certainly dispelled any doubt I may have had that you’re an M.D. - you’re quite touchy, imperious and intolerant of disagreement.
Thanks for the example of an ad hominem attack. Orac is pseudonymous, not anonymous. Many authoritarian opponents of blog criticism use that dodge: many fearmongers do the same.
The following link may help your spelling deficit: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deficit
I think I’ll close my message without a sneer, which courteous and well-mannered readers find off-putting and unpersuasive.
Best regards,
Ralph Dosser
I think Kirk demonstrated in his comment #142 that he is not “imperious and intolerant of disagreement”. I look forward to continuing this discussion today. It’s important and even though I’m skeptical about the danger of cell phones I don’t think it’s a slam dunk either way.
I want to make the point that we on the left tend to distrust corporations, with good reason, but we have to be careful not to jump to conclusions on these environmental and health issues involving corporate greed because we run the risk of losing credibility. In other words the right will always bring up the cases we’ve been wrong about in future debates.
I agree. But it’s about far more than loosing a political debate against the right. It’s about science continuing to loose credibility.
Encouraging people to pull the cell phones out of their ears and start interacting with the world immediately around them (driving, conversations with those present, etc.) can only be a benefit.
But alarmist “oh my god, we’ve proven cell phones will kill you” smacks of tabloid science.
Right now there are compelling reasons to think that this (cell phone cancer) is not the case, and some interesting reasons suggesting further study and some caution.
Dr. Murphy,
I apologize for this delayed question; I tried to get in last night, but my computer acted up. My question is with regards to the studies on cell phone use and cancer and other health related problems: Have they done studies on the health effects of having hearing aids and their batteries and electronics or do they work sufficiently differently that it couldn’t be a problem? I’m not trying to be a problem, just truly curious.
With apologies,
Heather
Heather, thanks for your useful and appropriate question. I’m going to answer your question first because — well — it will be shorter.
The reason it will be shorter is because I’m ignorant of specific studies on the question.
In general, my understanding is that any device that uses electricity can (and will) generate electromagnetic fields (EMF) when the power is “on”.
The intensity of the generated EMF is a factor of the strength of the electricity that provides the power.
For these reasons, my assumption is that the EMF generated by hearing aids would be far less intense than that generated by cell phones. On the oher hand, the duration of exposure to the hearing aids would (for most folks) be far less than the duration of exposure many users have to their cell phones.
If I can find an answer before the comments section turns into a pumpkin at 6 PM, I’ll supply that here.
In the meantime, thanks again for this great question. Good questions are never a problem: I’m glad you asked it!
Cell phones transmit waves back to the cell tower, so I’m sure the intensity of their radiation is much greater than that of hearing aides.
But intensity is not the only issue– frequency is also important, because the amount of energy per photon is proportional to the frequency. E=hf, where h is Planck’s constant. Particle interactions are an all-or-nothing proposition, and if each photon has a lower energy than it takes to knock an electron out of orbit then the radiation will not cause a chemical change in the material, even if the intensity (number of photons per second) is very high. A higher intensity will only cause heating of the material, not chemical reactions. So unless cell phone radiation is intense enough to cause enough local heating of your brain tissue it’s hard to see how it can have any effect on the biology of your brain.
That’s why I said earlier that one should have a high threshold for studies before concluding that cell phones constitute a health risk.
Analog hearing aids work at frequencies from around 20 Hz to perhaps 1200 Hz. If that sort of power at those frequencies was hazardous we’d see lots of headset users with fill-in-the-blank. Airline pilots wear headsets for hours at a time, as do phone service operators, many secretaries, etc.
That said, I’m not aware of any research on the matter.
Digital hearing aids are a different matter. They emit very low power switching signals at whatever frequency their microprocessor works at (likely in the tens to hundreds of MHz). This also happens to be the frequency that cell phones in the US work at (800 to 900 MHz for CDMA phones, 1800 MHz for PCS phones.)
One other thing that I think has been overlooked in this is that statistical association doesn’t demonstrate causal relation. Fisher himself viewed statistical association as a hunting license. His approach would receive these results along the line of, ”Okay, something is happening that isn’t plausibly due to chance. What is happening? Is it our model that is the problem, or is there a physiological response to low power signals at these frequencies?”
With that said, it’s just prudent to change your usage patterns pending definitive research results. We’ve dropped long distance on our land line because we use cells. But I’ll be using the headset (a wired headset) for any extended calls.
BC
Cell phone maximum radiated power is in the 1- 3 watt range.
The question of physiological activity could be answered pretty quickly in the laboratory. Isolate some Aplisia neurons, and see if you can trigger firing with radio frequency energy. Changing the firing patterns of neurons could easily modify their activity, especially during development.
Thanks VERY much, Dr. Murphy,
I suppose in most people’s cases they begin using them late in life. Unfortunately, I began using them when I was 30, and have used them for fifteen years. I am also concerned that unlike cell phone users, I have the power in my aids continually on and, of course, beside my brain, about 16 hours a day, every day.
Thinking a study needs to be done,
Heather
Oh, re-reading my earlier post on analog aids, the operating frequencies are likely 20 to 12,000 Hz or so, not 1200 Hz.
Are you using analog or digital aids, Heather?
That’s EXACTLY what concerns me, BC.
My hearing diminished to the point that two years ago I got a new set of digital hearing aids. Knowing now that the frequency used is that of cell phones, and that the aids are even newer technology than the cell phones, gives me pause, and I don’t have to option to: 1) change my usage without living in virtual silence, whoch as a fulltime college student I can’t, or 2) going back to my old analogue aids which aren’t adequate for my hearing loss.
Worried,
Heather
BC,
Was answering your question even as you were asking :)
Hugs,
Heather
Remember, the EM radiation your aids emit is coming off the chipset, there is no antenna to raise the effective power. I’m also going to take a WAG and suppose that the chipset is pretty well shielded, because FCC rules prohibit it from interfering with other radio-frequency devices and require it to accept interference (basic Part B rules). So, unlike cell phones (which are in the 1- 3 watt range), your aids are probably in the microwatt range.
If you haven’t got a choice, you haven’t got a choice. If you have any friends in the EE business, you could see if you could get them to check your aids for RF leakage and assess the power spectrum of any leakage found. You could also contact the manufacturer, but my guess is that they’ll be pretty reticent to disclose what they know.
Good luck to you.
BC
BC,
Thanks very much :) I appreciate your knowledge and answers :)
Hugs,
Heather
Heather,
You’re welcome. Just remember that opinions are like noses, everyone has one.
I’m a statistician, not an electrical engineer. I do have a fairly broad background in epidemiologic studies. I have a son (now 19) who has worn analog aids since age 2 1/2, so the issue is of some personal concern to me too.
BC
Riesz, thanks for your very constructive observations and questions at 139, 141, and 144. I’m glad to have the opportunity to consider these questions with you. Sorry I got delayed on today’s post.
Thanks also for your observation at 148.
Conceptually, controlled studies have already demonstrated associations between exposure to cell phone signals (and other non-ionizing EMF) and increased risks of various malignancies.
Also concetpually, some studies appear to demonstrate cell phone signals are capable of altering stucture/function in living organisms/systems/tissues.
The latter findings are consistent with the fact that about fifty organisms have already been demonstrated to be sufficiently sensitive to EMF fields that our planet’s “background” EMF fields are known to affect behavior. These organisms include vertebrates known to undergo chemical magnetoreception in response to fields as weak as 30 to 60 millionths of one Tesla.
oops - hit submit when i meant to repeat “review”. And “Telsa” should be “tesla”. sigh.
oh well — i’ll do series of smaller comments by way of reply….
When I first took pharmacology in college, our instructors were still tickled about the fact the mechanism of action for asprin had been elucidated a few years before. Today I was reminded that the angiotensin signalling mechanism — something we’ve always had as humans — was only detected when researchers puzzled out how some snake venoms caused lethal hypotension. And, of course, John Snow’s removal of the Broad Street pump handle succeded in curtailing a cholera outbreak before the anyone knew of the precise bioogical mechanism resluting in death from cholera.
On a more conceptual level, simply because we’re alive now we’ve no reason for concluding we’ve obtained complete comprehension of biology. Within living memory, DNA in eukaryotes was thought to exist only in chromosomes within the nucleus, mitochondria were thought to be just another organelle, and the central dogma told us information governing genetic expression flowed from DNA to RNA to protein.
Now, of course, we know eukayotic cells can contain plasmids, mitochondria are ancient symbiotes (thanks, Lynn Margulis!), and epigentic factors also play a role in regualting the expression of our genomes.
Hey — I think we’re all special just because we’re all alive. But just cause we’re alive doesn’t mean we’re so special we’ve lived to see the End Of Biology. Just as with the nifty proteins system that serves as the mechanism for chemical magnetoreception, there will be other new findings of hitherto unknown mechanisms in our biologies.
For this reason, I believe any assumption that EMF mediated toxicity must be constrained to mechanisms already elucidated is a false and invalid assumption.
That article on bird navigation is really interesting. We talked about that in my freshman physics class and we calculated the induced EMF across a goose’s wingspan when flying through Earth’s magnetic field. I don’t remember what it was but it’s very small. The method in the article you linked sounds more plausible, although I wonder if they just use the stars, Moon and Sun. Anyway that shows you can’t completely eliminate the effects of non-ionizing radiation on principle. But I still think there is a lot of difference between the marginal reaction in the article and the kind of reaction that could lead to cancer.
Another issue is that the studies you linked to seemed to show a very small, barely detectable correlation. One study said cell phones seemed to double the rate of brain cancer on the side of the brain next to the phone. But twice and extremely small number is still an extremely small number. What is the rate of brain cancer in the general population, 1/100000? Something pretty small like that. So you’re increasing you risk by 1/100000. That’s not much of an increase in risk.
But Keith you have caused me to think about this a little more. Should I get a head set for my daughter? I’ll keep an open mind. Thanks for your interesting post.
Keith:
Well, I’m keeping an open mind about cell phones because they radiate with a pretty high intensity close to your head, but as far as radiation from 60 Hz power lines I think the verdict is in on them. Not only is the frequency very low but so is the intensity. And I believe the epidemiological studies have been pretty conclusive (correct me if I’m wrong). I saw a very good show on Frontline about that where they explained the “Texas Sharpshooter” fallacy: That’s where you shoot at the side of the barn first, then paint the bullseye. In other words you examine the statistics then adjust the thresholds until you see a pattern. And that fallacy was used on some of the early studies of EMF and brain cancer. (Studies by non-professionals, that is.) There was also a physicist on the show who said the intensity of the radiation was too low by many orders of magnitude to possibly have any effect on biological tissue.
What we know as our consciousness appears to result from tiny ionic events propagating down neurons which appear to result in minute electrochemical events. EEGs - electroencephalographs - are crude summations of those tiny events. Transcranial EMF stimulation indicates that our neurons are indeed subsceptible to functional alteration in response to applied EMF (albeit at intensity ranges likely to exceed those seen in cell phones).
Here’s a partial list of studies describing compromised function and/or overt disease assoctiated with exposure to cell phones. The list includes lay descritions whenever possible:
(2) Karolinska/Uppsala/Wayne State (2008)
(3) Hardell/Hansson metanalysis (2007)
OK - this list is not complete, but illustrative. On to mechanisms…
uh oh. mechanisms will be broken into smaller bits. apologies to mods and the server hamsters.
oh crap. literally. one of my furry friends voted with their bum that dad has been spending far too much time shuffling papers at the computer. The paper carton with my reference reprints on this topic was pressed into catbox duty overnight.
I’ll have to take up the references in the detail I’d prefer in later posts.
Here’s a brief overview:
(1)
(from the U Pitt Comprehensive Cancer Center Director and twenty-one of his global colleagues)
(2)
While about 60% of control cells (not exposed to RF radiation) were observed to exhibit about five spontaneous Ca(2+) spikes per cell in 60 min, exposure of cells to an 800 MHz, 0.5 W/kg RF radiation, for example, significantly increased the number of Ca(2+) spikes to 15.7 +/- 0.8 (P
Who cares? Well, the tiny little ionic fluxes that comprise our electroenchephalographic (EEG) activity include changes in Calcium (Ca2+) ion flow. This finding provides a possible mechanism for changes in brain cell function in response to cell phone signals.
(3)
[snip]
A statistically significant difference in the rate of apoptosis was found in the RF-field-exposed neurons compared to the sham-, 37 degrees C- and 39 degrees C-exposed neurons either 0 or 24 h after exposure using both methods.
[snip]
Our results show that, under the experimental conditions used, exposure of primary rat neurons to CW RF fields may induce a caspase-independent pathway to apoptosis that involves AIF.
Who cares? Well, “apoptosis” is nerd speak for cell death. This study describes nerve cell death apparently caused by EMF at levels/frequencies emitted by cell phones.
For neurons — and their hosts — this is a bummer.
(4)
In conclusion, exposure to 900-MHz radiation emitted by mobile phones may cause endometrial apoptosis and oxidative stress, but treatment with vitamins E and C can diminish these changes and may have a beneficial effect in preventing endometrial changes in rats.
“Endometrium” is nerd-speak for uterine lining. This study describes cell phone signals killing of uternine lining cells: those things that feed the placenta.
This can be a bummer for uterii and their occupants…which lay people end up calling babies.
I’m not suggesting the mechanisms described above are defintive — but they do offer mechanisms through which EMF arising from cell phones can alter functtion and/or adversely effect living tissues.
The fact of these mechanisms - together with the metanalysis and other epidemiologic studies above - are consistent with the hypothesis that physiological effects from non-ionizing cellular phone EMF has adverse consequences that include behavioral abnormalities and brain cancer.
Do they prove the hypothesis? Nope — but as we know from the precautionary priniciple, waiting for proof is waiting for the body counts to pile up.
Do epidemiology statistics “only” show associations? Yep — by their very nature. Depsite this limit, epidemiolgy accurately revealed the lethal effects of lead, asbestos, vinyl chloride, PCB’s, tobacco, and many other toxins decades before the manufacturer-supported studies (and “scientists”) admitted the link.
For more, please check out microwavenews.com and pp 400-407 of The Secret History Of The War On Cancer.
Thanks again for the very good questions.