Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold'

[IndianaGreen]

Source: The Independent (UK)

Mobile phone use 'raises children's risk of brain cancer fivefold'

Alarming new research from Sweden on the effects of radiation raises fears that today's youngsters face an epidemic of the disease in later life

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 21 September 2008

Children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use mobile phones, startling new research indicates.

The study, experts say, raises fears that today's young people may suffer an "epidemic" of the disease in later life. At least nine out of 10 British 16-year-olds have their own handset, as do more than 40 per cent of primary schoolchildren.

Yet investigating dangers to the young has been omitted from a massive £3.1m British investigation of the risks of cancer from using mobile phones, launched this year, even though the official Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme – which is conducting it – admits that the issue is of the "highest priority".

Despite recommendations of an official report that the use of mobiles by children should be "minimised", the Government has done almost nothing to discourage it.

Last week the European Parliament voted by 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to bring in stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, Wi-fi and other devices, partly because children are especially vulnerable to them. They are more at risk because their brains and nervous systems are still developing and because – since their heads are smaller and their skulls are thinner – the radiation penetrates deeper into their brains.



Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/mobile-phone-use-raises-childrens-risk-of-brain-cancer-fivefold-937005.html

[The Backlash Cometh]

1. Geez. This is our thalidomide

[qanda]

2. This is very frightening

Ever since a friend of mine, a nuclear physicist, said that kids should never use cellphones I have been very leery of even my cellphone. I just shake my head when I see kids walking around with cellphone plastered to their ears.

[KurtNYC]

41. For $10 the risk can be avoided altogether

Using a wired earpiece (not a BlueTooth) will move the source of radiation away from the skull. Btw, a BlueTooth will actually diler radiation DEEPER into the skull.

[wtmusic]

3. OK this skeptic has been converted.

Came across this article, which reminds me of the ulcer/bacteria connection coverup:

"HENRY LAI HAS A VIVID RECOLLECTION OF HIS INTRODUCTION to the politics of big science. It was 1994, and he had just received a message from the National Institutes of Health, which was funding work he was doing on the effects of microwave radiation, similar to that emitted by cellular phones, on the brain. He and UW colleague Narendra "N.P." Singh had results indicating that the radiation could cause DNA damage in brain cells.

The news was apparently unwelcome in some quarters.

Someone had called the NIH to report that Lai was misusing his research funding by doing work not specified in the grant (the grant didn't mention DNA). And the agency wanted to know what was going on.

<>

The controversy goes back to a study by Lai and Singh published in a 1995 issue of Bioelectromagnetics. They found an increase in damaged DNA in the brain cells of rats after a single two-hour exposure to microwave radiation at levels considered "safe" by government standards."

http://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/march05/wakeupcall01.html

[tpsbmam]

4. Sending this one to my Republican neighbors.....

they bury their heads up their asses about everything, including this. I've sent a couple previous Independent articles to them and they pretty much blew me off. Saw their 13-year-old daughter walking down the road the other day with her cell phone plastered to her ear. They'll blow me off again and their kids could end up paying the price -- everyone ends up paying the price in one way or another when it comes to idiot Republicans. How sad. At least my Democratic neighbor who has young kids has listened.

[Quantess]

19. I know republicans are generally more idiotic in most ways, however,

I'm betting that an equal proportion of parents at the ends of the political spectrum will ignore this study.

[Codeine]

5. Baloney.

The energies involved in the use of cellphones are insufficient to oxidize cells. This is junk science.

[randome]

6. There are all types of radiation.

Radiation does not always equal radioactivity.

Low-level heat radiation has been mentioned in the past as a possible cause of brain cancer.

[tpsbmam]

7. Have you read the original research or are you basing this on reading the article...

and previous articles? It's pretty harsh to call it "junk science" if you haven't evaluated the research itself. I don't believe you can leap in and call it "junk science" without reading it, evaluating the controls, the nature of the evaluations, the N, and so on -- the article doesn't provide really any information to that end. It's a pretty blanket statement you made.

This physician is far from alone -- there's a growing chorus of physicians and research scientists who agree. You want to call it junk science and, if you have kids, take that chance, that's your choice. I wouldn't make the same choice.

[bean fidhleir]

39. He's basing it on his personal politics and ignorance (nt)

[Codeine]

46. My personal politics

differ little from your own, I'd wager. But thanks for presuming to read my mind. :hi:

[MannyGoldstein]

8. Not Necessarily Baloney - But Not Compelling, Either

For instance, it *might* cause some slight local heating in parts of the brain whose temperature is usually incredibly well-regulated. GSM uses frequencies up around 2 GHz, which is readily converted to heat when it hits flesh - which is why microwave ovens are also near that frequency.

That being said, this looks like a retrospective analysis of subgroups, which is always dicey - if you look for effects in enough subgroups, you'll often find stuff that is purely coincidental.

[LastDemocratInSC]

9. Mr Baloney, it's not a matter of 'oxidation' ... it's a matter of ionization

How can you call something baloney when you don't understand the issues involved? It's not a matter of 'oxidation', as you say.

The issue, specifically, is the ionization caused by the incident radiation. The microwave radiation creates ions in the tissue. The ions can then damage cell DNA. This is how radiation treatment for cancer works although radiation treatments use electron beams or x-rays or gamma rays (cobalt treatment).

The mechanism of cell damage is certainly in place with cellphones because of the proximity of the source of radiation to the body. The inverse square law is definitely your friend with cellphones ... the radiation exposure drops dramatically with distance between the phone and your body.

[amdezurik]

10. which is why I avoid Bluetooth headsets

I have a wired one so I avoid the issue completely.

[dansolo]

15. I thpought the energy involved with Bluetooth headsets is considerably less

The phones themselves emit a lot of energy, relatively speaking, because they need to send a signal over long distances. Bluetooth headsets emit a minuscule amount, because it only needs to communicate over short distances.

[AlphaCentauri]

21. the time of use of the blue tooth may expose the brain to a lesser radiation for longer periods of

time. Also the device may be closer to the brain since it has to be inserted inside the ear

[Codeine]

13. Shamefully

I gotta admit I said oxidation when I meant ionization. Mea culpa. :blush:

[enki23]

20. cell phones do not emit ionizing radiation

they emit in the RF spectrum. in other words, most of your reply is (at least somewhat) correct, but irrelevant.

[sudopod]

25. Protip

Infrared radiation is non-ionizing.

[flamingdem]

43. Do you have a link that makes this case?

Good to see the science on both sides

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. I should already be dead!!

:scared:

[Clear Blue Sky]

12. Kids seem to text far more than they talk on the phones anyway.

[Codeine]

14. Try it.

I don't talk on the damn things at all anymore because texting just works better for me.

[Lorien]

34. I don't get the whole text message thing

it costs more, calling is safer than texting if you are on the road, and calling takes less time. If I want to write to someone, I generally just send them an email. Why is texting so much more appealing than a regular phone conversation?

[JerseygirlCT]

42. My guess would be the immediacy of a phone

without actually having to talk to someone, lol.

I'm trying, but I'm slow. Some of the teen girls I've seen just astound me. How do they do that?

[Codeine]

47. Try T9.

It's the texting option that allows you to just hit a key once regardless of which letter you want. It's easier to do than it is to explain. Give it a shot -- it'll be in your texting options.

[JerseygirlCT]

48. So how does it know what letter you want?

I'm such an old fuddy-duddy!

[Codeine]

50. It anticipates your word.

Say I want to type "bank." The old way would see me hit 2 twice for the B, then wait, then hit 2 again for the A, then 6 twice for the N and 5 twice for the K -- a real pain.

With T9 I type 2,2,6,5 and it puts up the word "bank." That's the only word formed from that combination of letters.

Sometimes your combination can form lots of different words. If I want "bar" I type 2,2,7 and it puts up "car." I don't want that word, so I punch the Down Arrow and I get the other combos: "bar," "cap, "abs, "bap," and a bunch of fragments that begin longer words. When I see the word I want I hit ok and move on.

Much faster.

Trust me; it's way easier than it sounds. I'm an old guy (pushing 40) who avoided cell-phones and texting for years. Once I tried it I was hooked, however.

CAVEAT: Your phone won't know certain words, chiefly names and anything vulgar. You can teach the phone by adding these words to the dictionary. My phone curses like a sailor! :evilgrin:

[JerseygirlCT]

51. LOL

Well 99.99% of my texting is with my teenager, and I think he won't need to read much of mom cursing like a sailor, lol.

That sounds way cool. I'll have to see if my very old phone will do that. Won't he be impressed when slow old mom starts texting like a pro?

Thanks for the tip!

[Codeine]

45. For me it's not having to stop what I'm doing to answer a call.

A text comes in, I read it, and when convenient I type a quick answer. I can carry on a normal conversation with someone in person while still being able to deal with a second discussion via text. It's also more private -- nobody can hear my text.

I can text four or five conversations at once; discuss a trip with one person, work with another, dinner with yet another, and an upcoming D&D game with one more. That's great for me.

Also, I hate talking on the phone. Texting cuts through the crap -- people say what they want to say without any nonsense. No small talk, fumbling for words, or long pauses.

Finally there is a technical reason; when you have spotty reception (T-Mobile, I'm looking at you!) an SMS transmission can punch through where a normal call would drop after a second.

It really doesn't cost much; I spend nine bucks for an unlimited text and data plan. I generally send and receive upwards or three or four thousand texts and a few dozen pictures a month for that money.

[wickerwoman]

53. My cell reception sucks

and I spend most of my time calling people who don't speak English very well so it's easier for them to read the message than try to understand what I'm saying through all the static.

:shrug:

Plus, I always forget to turn my phone back on after class and I keep it turned off at night so it's easier for me know how urgent it is to reply if someone sends me a text than if they call and can't get through. And if someone doesn't recognize my phone number they might try to screen me if I call them directly so I always text first so they know it's me and can add my number into their caller ID.

Also, if you're texting people can't hear your conversation unlike the braying idiots shouting into their cellphones. I text on the subway to avoid bothering other people.

[ticked]

29. I agree

My kids both have cell phones and they text 90% of the time.

[AllHereTruth]

32. You cant defend cell phone usage, while at the same time having an "apple" as your avatar.

Just doesn't work.

[Clear Blue Sky]

36. Why not? Apple make a pretty good cell phone.

[elocs]

16. It seems like the cellphone genie is already out of the bottle and there's no putting it back.

Kids believe they are immortal anyways and so what happens 10 or 20 years from now is forever to them. There is absolute proof between smoking and disease, yet they smoke away. How about seat belts? I cannot count how many teens have died near where I live this past year simply because they could not wear a seatbelt in a simple rollover accident, or there is the more serious accident where all the kids survive except for the one not wearing a seltbelt. The older kids get, the more responsible they are for their own choices and behavior.

[NashVegas]

24. I Guess You Missed the Anti-Smoking PR Campaigns

That have drastically reduced the number of places a person can smoke to the point it becomes easier (and less expensive) to quit.

The obesity epidemic you hear about will be nothing compared to the cancer epidemic.

[elocs]

37. Gee, I don't know how I could have missed that.

Although on the American Lung Association site I read:

Every day approximately 4,000 children between 12 and 17 years of age smoke their first cigarette, and an estimated 1,300 of them will become regular smokers. Half of them will ultimately die from their habit.

I am sorry you chose to miss my point and it is not that there has been a reduction in smoking because there clearly has. For decades there has been clear and nearly universally accepted evidence that smoking causes disease and death, yet young people (4,000 a day) will choose to try their first cigarette and of that number over 474,000 will become regular smokers each year (certainly less than what it was, but not a small or insignificant number). There is no clear cut and universally accepted link between cell phone use and the risk of disease or death and kids love to use cell phones. So if kids smoke knowing there is a clear risk of harm, why would they or their parents end or curtail their cell phone use when there is no accepted clear risk link?

So the point is that just as the smoking genie will not be put back into the bottle, neither will the cell phone genie. Just because smoking has been reduced does not mean that the genie is back in the bottle. So whether it is smoking, cell phone use, or obesity, people will make their own choices even if they are harmful to them.

[fed_up_mother]

17. K&R

[iiibbb]

18. Several questions...

What is the actual incidence of brain cancer in young people? Is the 5-fold increase practically significant?

How many kids die in car accidents?

[AllHereTruth]

22. Well, im fucked.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. I can't imagine that constant use of a cell phone is too good for adults, either...

[Merlot]

26. I was getting a lot of headaches on the left side of my head

Same side as the ear piece. The headaches were random, not happening during or after phone use. So it took a while for me to figure out why I was getting them, Eventualy as an experiment I stopped using the earpiece and minimized my phone useage. Went back to my landline. Amazingly the headache have all but gone away. I wasn't to prone to headaches before I got the phone.

Now cell is for quick calles only, no headset/earpiece. And I'm headache free. Are the two related? I don't know, but I no longer have headaches.

[BrklynLiberal]

30. Scary stuff. I would bet the cell phone companies have known about the danger for a while..

but did not think it was necessary to tell the public.:crazy:

[sudopod]

27. This is a load of quackery and bullshit

Here is the paper: http://www.wjso.com/content/4/1/74#IDAVA2NH

In a shitty journal (World Journal of Surgical Oncology) which exists only online, doesn't list its impact factor anywhere, charges $1800 to "publish" articles (http://www.wjso.com/info/faq/?question=openaccess) , and thinks being listed on Google Scholar is somehow brag-worthy (http://www.wjso.com/info/faq/?question=indexed).

They "measured" the radiation dosages to the subjects via phone interview (lol), and while there is a substantial amount of statistics mumbo-jumbo, I don't see where they listed the sample size anywhere (NM, You might be able to figure it out after a few minutes with a calculator and Table 1). What the fuck?


TL;DR this is total bullshit from a bunch of kooks who are scaring the ignorant into thinking a watt of nonionizing radiation is going to OMG cause cancer.

These fools should be ashamed of themselves. This pseduoscientific nonsense isn't always a victimless crime. A girl in India recently committed suicide because she thought the LHC would destroy the world. Every time I get a dumb ass chain letter or see yet another article by a gullible journalist about things like this I want to fucking scream. O_o

[alarimer]

33. There aren't very many critical thinkers on this site and the will all buy this bullshit.

No matter how many times you and I may point out the junk science.

The appalling lack of scientific literacy everywhere is why we are in the fix we are in.

[Codeine]

49. For the win!

:applause: :applause: Nice to see some people are able to see past the bullshit.

[silverojo]

28. Just use the speaker phone on your cell, or get a headset

All the convenience, none of the risk.

[Indi Guy]

31. Err on the side of caution...

On Wednesday, Dr. Herberman sent a memo to about 3,000 faculty and staff saying that children should use cellphones only for emergencies because their brains are still developing. He advised adults to keep cellphones away from the head and use the speakerphone or a wireless headset, he said.

“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 cellphone use,” he wrote in his memo.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/prominent-cancer-doctor-warns-about-cellphones/

[all.of.me]

35. They're texting, not talking. Trust me; I have 2 teenagers.

What about adults? I am a texting idiot, so I talk. Will I get brain cancer?

[AllHereTruth]

52. Wait. Will i get finger cancer?

What about hand cancer?

[Shine]

38. That's what I was going to point out, too. Teens don't talk, they text.

that's what they all do these days. My teenager hardly ever has an actual phone conversation. :eyes:

[tuckessee]

40. Darwinism at work. n/t

[CRF450]

44. Nothing but bullshit here people, move along.... n/t

[uppityperson]

54. That does it. I'm feeding my cell phone to my pit bull, then going out to lunch at Olive Garden.