Thus, although in principle it is difficult to prove a negative, in this case, one can say it is impossible for cell phones to hurt the brain—with the exception, of course, of hitting someone on the head with one. QED.
This article was originally published with the title Can You Hear Me Now?.
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
71 Comments
Add CommentThe information that this author shares is pretty much scientific fact for most scientists. Cell Phones do not CAUSE cancer BUT is has been presented as a scientific fact in hundreds of studies that low level non-ionizing microwave radiation like that is used for cell phones will PROMOTE the growth of cancer. We all have cancer cells in our body. Our immune systems keep the cancer in check. When our immune systems break down - the cancer sets in from many environmental sources - and cell phones radiation will cause the cancer to grow quickly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor those of you that pay attention to this subject - you will often hear the cell phone industry say - "Cell phones do not cause cancer" - but few scientists will say " non-thermal non ionizing microwave radiation will not promote the growth of cancer cells"
It's time for the west look at the Russian studies - they have known this for a long time because their health system is not based on drug therapy. They use pulsating electromagnetic field therapy to cure many illnesses. They use PEMF in space to keep their astronauts from bone loss. It's all proven real world science. If only there was a Scientific Russian magazine to read in english - we would all learn so much from it.
This article is a big mess, it is mostly incorrect, it has severe factual errors and multiple flaws, and it is outrageous that the Editors allowed such non-sense with major mistakes to be published. Someone at Scientific American needs to do their homework, if the author is ignorant on this topic. It looks like the editorial oversight was non-existing for this article - or perhaps the Editors also need to sit down and read on this topic from the peer-reviewed literature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny environmental exposure can have 2 mechanisms of action: 1). direct, and 2). indirect. It is true that the energy of cell phone radiation cannot break DNA, the missing word in this article is *directly*. Thus, even the title is incorrect, "Physics" does not show that cell phones cannot cause cancer, it only shows that DNA breakage is not *direct*.
What about the *indirect* effects of cell phone radiation? About 6 different research groups have independently shown that DNA breakage occurs after cell phone radiation, and among some of the mechanisms implicated are 1). generation of reactive oxygen species, 2). protein phosphorylation, 3). cell cycle perturbations, 4). protein expression changes, particularly that of Hsp70 heat shock proteins. Yes, they even know the mechanisms!
Another huge flaw in this amateurish article, is that it assumes that breaking DNA is the only way to cause disease. This view is about 60 years backwards from our current scientific knowledge. It assumes that cells are made up of DNA and nothing else. Today, we know a lot about how proteins are affected in the cell, by environmental exposures, and we know specifically, in the case of cell phone-type radiation, that is has multiple ways in which it affects cellular proteins. This idea was already demonstrated by at least 15 different groups worldwide over the past few years only.
There is too much non-sense in this article, and the author really would serve his readership, as well as his own professional stature, if he would sit down and read about this topic before writing about it. Almost nothing in this article is true, most of the statements can be easily refuted with published facts, and it is a very amateurish piece of journalism that deviates very much from the known scientific facts that are published.
Someone at Scientific American really needs to step up professionalism, and make sure that articles are written by people who are well informed and do not misrepresent the truth. Just do a Pubmed search and read the actual papers, none of which support the above piece.
A claim that weak non-ionizing electromagnetic fields
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(EMF), particularly the pulsed radiation emitted by
cellular devices, cannot harm the brain denies the
existence of those people who suffer from
Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity (EHS) - an ailment
recognized by the WHO.
People, the world over, are becoming sensitized and
displaced from their homes after cellular antennas are
placed on their rooftops, or nearby. People, including
students, are getting ill from the WiFi (a technology
similar to cell phones) placed in the workplace,
schools and public places. Many others suffer from
diffuse brain damage after long term use of computers.
Perhaps Michael Shermer would like to take a challenge
and live within 100 yards of a cell tower emitting
1000 micro watts per cm2 - the permitted level of
microwave radiation in the U.S. Or maybe he'd like to
hold a connected cell phone to his head for several
days straight. Better yet, perhaps he'd be willing to
swap places with an EMF refugee that has had an
antenna placed on their roof and now suffers from
chronic headaches.
The publication of this article does a disservice to
the public who should be wary of the proliferation of
wireless devices, not drop their guard.
All right so far as it goes: but it is known that microwave fields can affect the course of chemical reactions which involve intermediate free radicals or triplet states. Such states can occur in oxygen metabolism, and can be detected by their absorption of microwaves (Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy). This may not be a sufficiently large change of chemistry to cause cancer, but if the pathway disrupted is critical in (say) repair of cellular damage by ionising radiation (which certainly generates free radicals)there may be a synergy. And the other observation is that if the blood circulation of the brain were not so large the simple thermal energy deposited by microwaves near the ears would fry it: I understand the safety factor here was only about 10 in early mobiles: it may be better now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is unfortunate that Scientific American is publishing poorly thought-out articles such as this one. The author's "proof" relies on various hidden assumptions which he either does not state or more likely, he is simply unaware of. Besides the issues raised in the preceding comments, it has been well established that damage to complex molecules can occur from low energy electromagnetic radiation as a result of resonance: the molecule can vibrate at the frequency (or a small integer multiple of the frequency) of the incoming radiation, and these vibrations can become larger and larger, eventually disrupting the molecule. In any resonance phenomenon, with each vibration the energy is "stored" in the elastic motions of the molecular bonds, and it can accumulate to the point where the bond breaks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, I agree that it is extremely unlikely that cell phones cause cancer. But publishing a poorly researched article in an authoritarian voice, with hidden assumptions and other errors of omission only serves to discredit the scientific efforts that have gone into investigating these issues. Shame!
I'm not a researcher in this field, so I'm not sure whether or not cellphone radiation has been found to increase the rate of cell division in the exposed area. Anything that stimulates cell division can increase the likelihood of mutation by leaving less time for repair enzymes to repair damaged DNA during DNA replication.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, cellphone radiation wouldn't have to stimulate cell division to promote cancer ( see above comment ). It would just have to have the potential to denature DNA repair enzymes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that all the telephone frequencies and power are most likely harmless, particularly if they are not attenuated by passing through the human body. However, if they are absorbed by the body, something must be happening inside the body and we should understand what is happening whether it is harmless or not. So it isn't breaking bonds, but it might be influencing chemical reactions in an unexpected way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas I recall, from Thermodynamics I believe, kJ/mol typically is used to measure the energy contained by a mass. Often kJ/mol is used in quantization of energy transferred during phase transformations or chemical reactions. More appropriate quantization units for describing an electormagnetic field effect on organic matter would be watt/hours. Representing "facts" with unrelated data is not scientific - shame on the editors for allowing this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with many of the previous comments: Scientific American should be doing better. If its mission is to improve the public's understanding of scientific issues, Shermer would get a failing grade.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMicrowave News posted a detailed comment on Shermer's column and the outlook of similarly-minded skeptics at:
http://www.microwavenews.com/
(September 28, 2010).
First the journalist John Horgan on how Tchernobyl was nothing to worry about, now the psychologist Shermer on the lack of biological effects of microwave radiation. What is next? An opinionated geographer telling us that GM food is safe? A marine-biologist with strongly felt statements about the health benefits of tobacco? An economist rebuffing climate change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat irks me is not so much the stance of the author (even though he misrepresented the original study, for instance, the biological effects of cellphone radiation seem to real, but quite limited), but that he blatantly substitutes opinion for argument. This is unworthy of a scientific publication.
Microwave radiation is absorbed in the biological tissue, which is employed in a microwave oven for heating food. According to Shermer’s logic, the enzymes in the cooked meat should remain unaffected, because the microwave radiation does not have enough energy to break the chemical boonds. The Shemer’s arguments, as well as his self-confidence, are preposterous and do not deserve serious discussion. What is strange is the fact that Scientific American has been giving a whole page in every issue to comment on scientific subjects to somebody who has a degree in Christian theology and psychology
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe author talks about photons, as if most people used their mobile phones primarily as flashlights. Why is that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRichard2101,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatch those hyphens! For example, nonsense has no hyphen.
excellent article(don't know if the full one was posted here...haven't read the magazine one yet)....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisfrom the comments...it sounds like Shermer has a good size hate'm club...to bad...his articles are always based on science...usually trying the debunk the mystic seekers....
Mr Shermer does not even mention the fact that numerous studies of mice and rats, who were deliberatly bred to be to be susceptible to various cancers, have shown no increase in any cancer even when they were exposed to cell phone microwave radiation 24 hours a day for their entire life spans.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMicrowave radiation is absorbed in the biological tissue, which is employed in a microwave oven for heating food. According to Shermer’s logic, the enzymes in the cooked meat should remain unaffected, because the microwave radiation does not have enough energy to break the chemical boonds. The Shemer’s arguments, as well as his self-confidence, are preposterous and do not deserve serious discussion. What is strange is the fact that Scientific American has been giving a whole page in every issue to comment on scientific subjects to somebody who has a degree in Christian theology and psychology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistomerg....the main part of the article was to show the latest study shows no correlation between cell phone use and cancer...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisps...microwaves do not cook meat...they just heat water molecules....
The author's reasoning could be used to argue that sonoluminescence is impossible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer writes: "Green-light photons hold 240 kJ/mole of energy, which is enough to bend (but not break) the rhodopsin molecules in our retinas that trigger our photosensitive rod cells to fire. A cell phone generates radiation of less than 0.001 kJ/mole. That is 480,000 times weaker than UV rays and 240,000 times weaker than green light!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe former sentence means that a mole of green photons holds 240kJ. But the latter means that a mole of cell phones generates one joule. That is nonsense. Shermer probably meant to write that the electromagnetic radiation (i.e. photons) emitted by a cell phone are much less energetic that those of green light. Perhaps so. But the power of a light or a cell phone depends not just on the energy of each photon, but also on the total number of photons. And Shermer doesn't say how much power a cell phone transmits to the brain when held at the ear.
If it is sufficient, it might be that cell phone radiation doesn't break bonds but does denature (i.e. cook) the proteins, lipids, etc., in brain tissue causing them to fold improperly or fail to combine in the right way. He does not eliminate all the possibilities for harm. And his statement as to the impossibility is overly conclusive.
A central argument in this article reads "Cell phone photons cannot add up to ... have their effect any more than microwave or radio-wave photons can". This argument is false, since energies of many radio-frequency photons do aggregate commonly in small spaces and on a single molecule or a single particle. The examples outlined in the following link are the thousands of photon energies crowded on a one-micron gate of a transistor of a cellphone receiver required to receive each single bit of information, energy of huge number of photons rotating (polarizing) a single molecule in the dielectric material of a capacitor under alternating electric field, energy of many photons accelerating an electron in an avalanche photo-diode and the huge energy imparted by radio waves (photons) to an electron inside a particle accelerator. I do not think that low energy photons cause a direct ionization inside a human body but they do not have to do so to cause or promote cancer. https://sites.google.com/site/pelegmichael/Radio_wavesversus_photons.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with the comments here that are critical of this article, and I have some additional comments. Mr Shermer cites an article from his own magazine, The Skeptic, by a physicist who claims that there can be no link because there is no known mechanism. Aside from the obvious fact that many mechanisms have been pointed out in other comments, I would like to add that not knowing a mechanism is not the same as not seeing a phenomenon. Newton could see gravity as a phenomenon, but the mechanism is still being debated among cosmologists. Even in the debate over the Copernician view of the solar system, religious authorities refused to look into telescopes to see the moons of Jupiter with their own eyes, because they knew there could be no mechanism that could explain them. Mr Shermer is acting like a religious authority who "knows" what is true about cell phones. I suggest we find out if there is a phenomenon first, then worry about the mechanism later.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, there is evidence that the telecom industry suppresses research that finds a link to cancer. Here is a link to a Time magazine article that explores this:
http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2010/09/27/health-a-cancer-muckraker-takes-on-cell-phones/
I read an article in the newspaper recently (Sorry, I can't find it now. Maybe someone else can help.) saying that of all the articles on the subject, a large majority of those funded by the telecom industry found no connection. Of those NOT funded by the telecom industry, a large majority found a connection. So this makes me ask if physicist Bernard Leikind has ties to the telecom industry, and also whether Michael Shermer and "The Skeptic" accept advertising money from the telecom industry. A "real" journal requires all conflicts of interest to be disclosed. "The Skeptic" is actually just unscientific entertainment, preaching to its choir, and I find Mr. Shermer's presence in Scientific American
contradictory. Does SA also consider itself to be just entertainment?
Dunno about the science, but I do know that I can't use a mobile/cell phone for more than about 30 seconds without getting a headache, so obviously, don't use it much.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs well, I've had to revert to the old fashioned landline phone rather than use a cordless ... once again, headaches.
Electromagnetic sensitivity perhaps?
BTW, if the above comments are right and there are factual errors in the report, it joins quite of list of errors in Sci Am reports. What's happening ... I used to trust this publication!
Mr. Shermer discounts the precautionary principle. In his words, it "holds that if something has any potential for great harm to a large number of people, then even in the absence of evidence of harm, the burden of proof is on the unworried to demonstrate that the danger is not real. The precautionary principle is a weak argument for two reasons: (1) it is difficult to prove a negative—that there is no effect; (2) it raises unnecessary public alarm and personal anxiety."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth reasons are wrong. The first reason simply says that the precautionary principle is hard to do. I would say, so what? Before you test your new chemical on my children, you'd better do the research first, no matter how hard it is to do. If you can't, then make sure it doesn't get into my food, water, and air. All the precautionary principle says is that the research should be done before exposing billions of people to a possible danger, not afterward (or not ONLY afterward). Proving a negative is certainly difficult, but a reasonable attempt to find out if the likely dangers are true should be done, proportional to the possible harm.
The second reason is self-evidently false. The precautionary principle will reduce unnecessary public alarm and personal anxiety. Judge for yourself how alarming these two statements would be to the public: "BP decides to test its blowout preventers under extra harsh environments to make sure they work as designed," vs. "BP oil platforms explodes and its blowout preventer fail, resulting in the biggest oil spill in the nation's history." I know which statement would make me more alarmed.
jschunke, you wrote:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this> Perhaps Michael Shermer would like to take a
> challenge and live within 100 yards of a cell
> tower emitting 1000 micro watts per cm2
Well, I am not afraid of cellphone emissions, but I certainly wouldn't want to live within 100m of a cellphone tower emitting 1mW/cm^2 ***in 100m distance***.
Why? Because the Antenna would disturb my sleep!
1mW/cm^2 = 10W/m^2 = 1.2MW on the inner surface of sphere with a radius of 100m. If we assume the antenna has a 50% efficiency at emitting radio waves, then it must dissipate the same amount of energy again as heat.
This is the same amount of heat and light radiated by 20000 60W-Lightbulbs. The filament of a 60W lightbulb has a surface area of app. 1cm^2, so an Antenna with a surface area of 2m^2 would heat up to the same temperature as the filament of a lightbulb, and, viewed from 100m distance, appear as bright as a 60W bulb in 0,7m distance.
But not for long, since, unless made of tungsten, the antenna would immediately evaporate!
So, as a rule of thumb, if the antenna of a cellphone tower in 100m distance from you is neither brightly lit nor in the process of evaporating, it is probably safe ;-)
The cellphone towers i have seen so far were all dark, and typically emitting less than 100W, as much as a single 100W Bulb mounted at the other end of a soccer field.
That's why I, and probably Michael Shermer too, are not afraid of cellphone towers.
I was going to comment about the narrowness of Shermer's argument, but many here have already done that and have specific expertise/knowledge. Bravo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are more things potentially involved than "energy per photon" the crux of Shermer's argument. Resonance, denaturing of proteins, opening of ion channels and or cellular pumps, free radicals and the disruption of DNA repair mechanisms would all seem relevant.
Cell phones do get hot when they are in use even for a short time. Most of that is battery heating, but a good fraction of that energy is being radiated, very close to the head.
I can cook an egg with heat that is about 140 Deg C. That is uncomfortably warm.
Heating pads have warnings not to fall asleep on them for prolonged periods. The risk is not fire, for they only reach 42-50 Deg C or so. Yet this temperature is enough to disrupt cellular function enough to cause a serious large burn -cell death- if the heating pad is large and the blood flow cannot dissipate the heat fast enough. No energy high-enough-to-break-bonds but cells do die if held at temperatures away from 37 deg C for too long.
Shermer is a historian of Science and a skeptic, both of which I admire. If he consulted a physicist who overlooked these other aspects, both can be forgiven, ---but they should learn from the error!
I once saw a high school student ask a question about "9V" battery terminal voltage, why did it change when it was put in the freezer? A physicist answered with the classic thermoelectric effect, -completely disregarding the electrochemistry involved. The former is microvolts/degree, the latter is millivolts/degree. Clearly the chemistry is the dominant effect.
Printing a retraction (if warranted) - after studying the subject more carefully - would be a good thing. It is nice to save face, but integrity demands facing the facts such as they are.
Dideldum I like the way you run your numbers, but maybe jschunke just picked a poor set? If he'd said live within 20m of a tower emitting 10kw, then the w/m^2 would be the same, but the tower would be emitting a more likely amount of power. And the tower would not be glowing, since they typically don't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour guess of antenna efficiency at 50% is probably too low, especially for a high powered system. The impedance of free space is ~376 ohms. If you want to transmit well the system driving the antenna should match that. If it does, then the "copper losses" would be a few ohms or less of the total impedance.
If it is not, then effort is made to match it, with baluns, tuned stubs and the like. Antenna and (transmission line impedances) can vary a lot, 36 50 75 300 ohms being typical.
If you are only transmitting 5W on a CB, then matching is beneficial, but not strictly required. If you are putting out 1-50KW then good matching becomes a requirement. The money wasted as heat, could purchase the equipment to do the job right, and save $$ in the long run.
Shermer misstates the precautionary principle (PP), a fundamental tenet of public health, best explicated as follows: When evidence points toward the potential of an activity to cause significant, widespread or irreparable harm (not “any harm”) to public health or the environment, options for avoiding that harm should be examined and pursued, even though the harm is not yet fully understood or proven. In medicine, this corresponds to the adage, “First do no harm.” The PP has four practical essentials: give human and environmental health the benefit of doubt; include appropriate public participation in the discussion; gather scientific, technological and socioeconomic information; and consider less risky alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe PP has been endorsed by the American Public Health Association and is applicable to climate change, environmental toxins, disease outbreaks, and nuclear weapons policy. It forms the basis for international agreements such as the EU’s REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) Treaty, the Montreal Protocol (phasing out ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol, the Stockholm Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants, and the UN's World Charter for Nature. While full implementation of the PP is less common in US regulatory policies than in the EU (where it is constitutionally enshrined), The Wilderness Act, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act are all precautionary in intent. The Food Quality and Protection Act of 1996 and the National Environmental Policy Act also exemplify a precautionary approach to public health, and the Food and Drug Administration employs precaution in its requirement for all new drugs to be tested before they are marketed.3
Adaptation of Wingspread Statement, Science and Environmental Health Network. See http://www.sehn.org/precaution.html.
American Public Health Association Policy Statement Database. The precautionary principle and children’s health. Approved 1/1/00. See http://www.apha.org/advocacy/policy/policysearch/default.htm?id=216.
Precautionary principle – FAQs. See http://www.sehn.org/ppfaqs.html. Accessed 10/6/10.
Martin Donohoe,MD,FACP
Adj Assoc Prof,Comm Hlth
Portland St U
Chief Sci Adv,Campaign for Safe Food
OR PSR
Int Med, Kaiser Sunnyside Med Ctr
http://www.publichealthandsocialjustice.org
http://www.phsj.org
martindonohoe@phsj.org
No biological effects? Why the author doesn't read SCIAM first? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=could-cell-phone-radiatoin
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe only mechanism that by which radiation can cause cancer is to ionize a molecule. This is done by having a photon dislodge an electron from its orbit. Microwavesno matter how many photons there are and how powerfull the signal is can not do this. Therefore Dr. Shermet is right in saying that there is no way that a cell phone can cause cancer and further spending on inconclusive studies is a waste of money.
Joe - you don't know what you are talking about. Read the literature first. There are about 5 mechanisms published about non-ionizing radiation, how it causes biological effects that lead to cancer. One of them is changing the expression of proteins in cells. Did ya' hear about that before? You know what proteins are, don't you? (You don't need to "ionize" anything).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this=good discussions; a simple doctor me knows cell phone batteries send and receive signals across 1 km towers, and that when i wear the cell next to my heart in the inside pocket, the buzz creates creepy jump in my heart and nerves right down to the toes....and the ear nerves are just 5cm from/to the temporal brain.look at these lovelorn talking for hours. i stopped the buzzz and wear the phone in my thigh pocket. hope it doesnt affect the lateral thigh merve.george pradhan,mb,ind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere has been a lot of discussion about cell towers and microwaves on this article. What most people commenting here seem to ignore is that the term "microwaves" refers to energy waves that cover an enormous spectrum. Not only does the frequency of the wave matter, the amplitude also matters. The more wattage in the signal, the more power it has. The microwaves used in an oven are very different than the microwaves used in telecom.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have no idea if cell phones cause cancer from radiation but I do know that solid state electronics such as computers, cell phones, iPods, etc. all leak small amounts of toxic chemicals through out their normal lifespan. Until we know everything there is to know about the human body, these grand proclaimations one way or the other are just politics and nothing more.
I actually hate cell phones but I don't think one would make me sick. I have trouble wearing watches because the electronics fry within a week or two. Maybe I cause cancer in cell phones!!!! Or not.
"Non-ionizing radiation can produce non-mutagenic effects such as inciting thermal energy in biological tissue that can lead to burns". According to the all knowing Wikapedia.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that I know what a protein is . Do you know anything about the uncertainty principle and why low frequency radiation will produce totally different chemical effects then high frequncy radiation.
So very disappointing. 240,000 times weaker? How does one arrive at smaller (weaker) value by multiplying any positive number by 240,000? Or 480,000?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJoe-thanks for the resource, but Wikipedia is the last thing I would use as a scientific reference. I or anyone else can write anything there. Non-ionizing radiation has 2 types of effects, 1). thermal, and 2). non-thermal, which refers to biological effects that occur *below* what is needed to cause tissue heating (which is the so-called "thermal effect").
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not about comparing low- and high-frequency radiation, this is about health effects of non-ionizing radiation. Cancer is just the tip of the iceberg, until then, there are a lot of other effects that are well documented in the literature. For example, it was shown a few years ago (and it is published) that many proteins in the skin change their expression (i.e., are produced in higher or lower amounts) when the skin is exposed to radiation. That is, non-ionizing, cell-phone or wireless type radiation. It was also shown that the blood-brain barrier, which keeps certain chemicals out from the brain, becomes leaky under electromagnetic radiation, at doses that are lower than what is currently used for cell phones. Many animal models and many laboratories showed that albumin, a protein from the blood, leaks into the brain (along with other compounds) when the brain is exposed briefly to non-ionizing radiation. This observation in fact enabled some clinicians and neurosurgeons to facilitate chemotherapy drugs' penetration into the brain, in patients with brain tumors (normally, the blood brain barrier keeps chemotherapy drugs out from the brain, and this is problem when in cancer patients the drugs are administered into the blood). There are many studies showing that spermatogenesis is affected by wireless radiation, and a number of studies revealed DNA breakage and the generation of reactive oxygen species, which themselves can break the DNA, as a result of electromagnetic radiation. (Note, this is important: I did not say that DNA breaks directly, I said that DNA breakage occurs as a result of other biological perturbations in the cell).
It is also known that a lot of people (50% in one study) had tinnitus (ringing int he ear) that occurred as a result of cell phone use, and all studies that were conducted for 10 years or more, found brain tumors on the same side where the cell phone was mostly used. Another set of published experiments, in dogs, reveals that heart rate changes as a result of non-ionizing radiation, exactly a symptom that is reported worldwide by many individuals who are sensitive.
It is time to understand the danger, and become informed.
Since you impinge the reliability of Wikipedia (it is not a definitive source, but is generally more reliable than unreferenced assertions posted in a blog), I'm sure you can refer us to your source for the following information:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"It is also known that a lot of people (50% in one study) had tinnitus (ringing int he ear) that occurred as a result of cell phone use, and all studies that were conducted for 10 years or more, found brain tumors on the same side where the cell phone was mostly used."
I'm quite curious how whatever studies you refer to determined that the cause of their sampled populations' tinnitus was cell phone usage. That would be an interesting result, requiring sophisticated analytical methods. Very interesting.
"At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., levels lower than those that would produce significant heating; the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is ambiguous and unproven."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is from the FCC-they don't seem to know anything about the proven means of biologic effect that Richard has seen in the literature or maybe they get all their information Wikapedia like I do.
This is a disappointing article to have under a column called skeptic. To come out with such an absolute assured attitude against the possibility that cell phones have a role in cancer is inappropriate from a real scientific mindset. Yeah your physics is correct but only in the most direct and simple way. There is so much being uncovered about cell structure and function that to say there is no way that non ionizing cancer cant cause cancer is laughable. Microwaves run on non-ionizing radiation and we would all agree they can destroy cells on the whole. If non-ionizing radiation did so little as to perturb the shape of the ced proteins in a cell that cell would be in position to accumulate a larger number of mutations increasing the risks of that cell developing into a cancerous one. The epigenetic effect is another potential risk elevator that I am quite certain you are not taking into account.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpend your time doing more good like making sure you know your bio as well as your physics. I would be dissapointed if my AP Biology students had written this with such certainty. D+ (only because you have Einstein's nobel prize winning ideas correct)
I think, the real issue here is the use of the word “radiation” which is just a mechanism by which energy from a source travels in the form of electromagnetic waves. However, people tend to associate “radiation” with that from nuclear explosions and accidents, which is definitely lethal and cause cancer. The very mention of the “r” word therefore sends a chill down their spine. It must be realized that “radiations” from cell phones are at lower frequencies and have much less energy per photon than even visible light. At worst they can cause localized heating of body tissues, cancer is just out of question. The use of the word “emission” rather than “radiation” can therefore contribute in a big way toward dispelling fear and misconceptions among the general public regarding use of cell phones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this. I think, the real issue here is the use of the word “radiation” which is just a mechanism by which energy from a source travels in the form of electromagnetic waves. However, people tend to associate “radiation” with that from nuclear explosions and accidents, which is definitely lethal and cause cancer. The very mention of the “r” word therefore sends a chill down their spine. It must be realized that “radiations” from cell phones are at lower frequencies and have much less energy per photon than even visible light. At worst they can cause localized heating of body tissues, cancer is just out of question. The use of the word “emission” rather than “radiation” can therefore contribute in a big way toward dispelling fear and misconceptions among the general public regarding use of cell phones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt certainly doesn't take much online research to find data to concern this layman. E.g.:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatch Video (10 minutes): Evidence for Cellular Stress-Heat Shock Protein Activation, Part-1; Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University
(Source: http://bit.ly/aCpTO3)
Watch Video (10 minutes): Evidence for Cellular Stress-Heat Shock Protein Activation, Part-2; Martin Blank, PhD, Columbia University
(Source: http://bit.ly/bkzFiU)
- - - -
Read: "LONG-TERM MOBILE PHONE USE AND BRAIN TUMOR RISK", By Dr. Lennart Hardell. American Journal of Epidemiology
(Source: http://bit.ly/9FbiLm)
- - - -
Read: "The Bioinitiative report." The Evidence showing harm is overwhelming -- In 2007, the Bioinitiative Working Group, an international collaboration of prestigious scientists and public health policy experts from the United States, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, and China, released a 650-page report citing more than 2,000 studies (many very recent) that detail the toxic effects of EMFs from all sources. Chronic exposure to even low-level radiation (like that from cell phones), the scientists concluded, can cause a variety of cancers, impair immunity, and contribute to Alzheimer's disease and dementia, heart disease, and many other ailments. "We now have a critical mass of evidence, and it gets stronger every day," says David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and coauthor of the public-health chapters of the Bioinitiative report.
Source: http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm
- - - -
DNA DAMAGE IN HUMAN BLOOD: Chromosome Damage and Micronucleus Formation in Human Blood Lymphocytes Exposed In Vitro to Radiofrequency Radiation at a Cellular Telephone Frequency
Source: http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/0033-7587%282001%29156%5B0430%3ACDAMFI%5D2.0.CO%3B2?journalCode=rare
- - - -
Read: Regular mobile phone use linked to tinnitus: Regular use of a mobile phone for more than four years almost doubles the chance of developing tinnitus – the debilitating condition that causes constant ringing or buzzing in the ears.
(Source: http://bit.ly/9t0dm8 )
- - - -
Read: "Cellphones and Brain Tumors 15 Reasons for Concern "
(Source: http://bit.ly/bu1MTj)
- - - -
Also, the question you need to ask yourself is "Why do cell phone manufactures like iPhone, Motorola, etc. include into their user-manuals instructions to `keep your cell phone away from your body when in use?"
(Source: http://www.youtube.com/v/F4bp7Zi_8pk)
Before I start, I would just like to point out that the introduction to this article is pretty pitiful. How does any of this "right mistake" "wrong mistake" business relate at all to cellphones when both ideas are inherently fallacious (an idea that the author points out indirectly himself)? It's funny because the author ridicules the idea of a "wrong mistake" by asking a rhetorical question at the article's opening. Already I'm turned off by the writer and begin to sincerely question the guy's credibility.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI most definitely have to agree with the comments above, and appreciate that most of them are also scientifically grounded, making them significantly more compelling and relevant to the heart of what this paper is about. I am absolutely revolted some of this author's comments about the precautionary principle and think it is a SWEEPING and reprehensible error his part to defame it as a "weak argument" that "raises unnecessary public alarm." First of all, I would like to point out that public alarm did not necessarily stem from public health agencies or scientists musing about the possible dangers of cell phones - rather, people are skeptical (and rightly so!) about these devices for which there is little scientific evidence proving their safety! I really have to question anyone's credibility when they take an "innocent until proven guilty" approach to environmental concerns of our day - what about chemicals and pesticides (a recent example would be BPA) that, thankfully, there was a hype about which fueled not only research but also a heightened public awareness and appropriate industry response? It's actually this author's rebuttal to the precautionary principle that is weak. I think that this author is also conflating paranoia with public concern - I only see skepticism as healthy and we most definitely need more rigorous studies conducted on these questionable devices. As a researcher myself, I cannot believe that this author argues that because it is difficult to prove a negative, the hype regarding this is futile and not productive. If society adopted such a principle, we would never overcome the difficulties of research that assuredly are integral to maintaining the health of our society, pushing forward progressive health standards, and placing stresses on industries that repeatedly violate the public interest.
As leaders in scientific and medical news, Scientific American editors should genuinely be ashamed of publishing such an article.
I have no real knowledge of chemistry or physics, except my 32 years working with and evaluating computer equipment, but as I understand the strength of chemical bonds varies considerably. I then guess that the amount of energy required to break chemical bonds also varies considerably. Please see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_bonds
This claim that "Cell phones cannot cause cancer, because they do not emit enough energy to break the molecular bonds inside cells" and its discussion of the amount of energy that can or cannot break chemical bonds within organic molecules seems to be ill founded. Perhaps there's something I simply don't understand: if so please explain.
Hi, jtdwyer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are right about chemical bonds.
Unfortunately, the author's article, besides being fallacious, is also overly simplistic. If you look for peer reviewed articles, you can see that we know quite a lot already about the fact that radio frequency radiation affects living organisms, and contrary to popular belief, effects are *not* only by breaking chemical bonds. That is just one of the many potential mechanisms.
Just to tell you about a group of studies independently conducted by various scientists worldwide, they have shown that radio frequency radiation increases the permeability of the blood-brain barrier. This is the barrier that prevents toxins, chemicals from the blood, from entering the brain. They have shown in various animal models, that after exposing them to radiation of cell-phone type, a color dye that is injected into the bloodstream will quickly end up in the brain. (Normally, that dye should *not* cross from arteries into the brain). The major implication is that, if this barrier is leaky, chemicals from the blood can enter the brain and become toxic there. In fact, it is amazing that this observation came as a result of a neurosurgeon's efforts to develop better ways to treat patients with brain cancer: when chemotherapy drugs are injected into the bloodstream, the blood-brain barrier keeps them out, and they have difficulty entering the brain to kill the tumor cell. But this investigators realized that if he exposes the patients to radio frequency, the drug can enter the brain and perform its activity.
Articles show that radio frequency radiation affects several proteins that hold cells together. Normally cells are "glued" to each other, by so-called "junctions", and this prevents things from one side, from crossing to the other side.
And another recent study exposed volunteer humans' skin to radio frequency radiation, and showed that, as compared to controls, exposed individuals had several proteins that changed their expression levels after short exposures. This is fascinating, and for decades it has been known, independently, that heat shock proteins (which ensure the folding of other proteins in cells) have response elements that enable them to respond to radio frequency.
This reminds me of smoking. Nobody understood how those small amounts of chemicals cause cancers. A very recent study examined genes from the chromosomes and showed that several hundreds are affected by smoke. Who would have thought? Let's imagine waiting with smoking policies until all mechanisms are known!
Circa 1975 a strange correlation developed between radar operators on a particular class of Russian ships and apparent MS. When rotated away from duty, however, the former radar operators got better. Obviously not really MS. Now the design of the ships carefully place the radar operators outside the area of ionizing radiation (of course). But long work shifts in the standing electromechanical fields apparently correlated with breakdown of the myelin sheaths of the long axons, nicely mimicking MS. Of course causality and mechanism is difficult to prove, but I found most likely the suggestion that the standing field with the operators near motionless with respect to the field tended to line up ions in the body in a way that interfered with Brownian motion and that this some how in turn interfered with routine ongoing repairs. No actual damage by the non-ionizing radiation was needed to interfere with repair. Made sense to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo I think you're making the wrong mistake: Presuming that no harm can come without ionization.
Your calculations probably prove that you cannot "burn" yourself (or even disrupt eye pigments) under normal circumstances.
I even doubt that cell phones can cause cancer.
But protracted and constant use could potentially interfere with, say, routine mechanisms of excession repair. (Pure speculation.)
But speculation though it may be, that speculation is less of a mistake than insisting something is safe just because it cannot burn you.
As the Soviet Union discovered, much to its dismay, non-ionizing radiation is still dangerous. You can look it up. My source in 1975 or 1976 was an Israeli translation of intelligence intercepts they choose to publish. Sorry I can't remember the authors. Try Kellogg library in Hanover, NH
Of course this potential problem could be obviated by simply not nearly gluing the phone to one location on your body.
But that is not my point. My point is that you made the wrong mistake. And you are not nearly as funny as Yogi Berra.
I too was surprised to find such an amateurish piece in SA. I can hear you Mr Shermer, but a more rational approach is needed. I would think a sceptic such as yourself would be more cautious about something you know so little about. Your simplistic premise and pat answer, that non-ionizing radiation can't "break bonds" and therefore can't cause cancer is so naive. Asbestos is inert and also doesn't "break bonds", but can certainly cause cancer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree that the evidence for a causal association between various brain tumors and RF radiation remains unsubstantiated, even though some epidemiologic results have been quite positive. We're not at the point of proposing regulations based on a precautionary principle.
But not for the reason you espouse. Try to think like a scientist, and be a true skeptic.
At the highest GSM band frequency, a photon
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscompletely absorbed by a single molecule can
raise the temperature of that molecule, at most,
by about 0.6 Kelvins. When you consider the
energy distribution among molecules at body
temperature, which is about 100 Kelvins wide
(taken at the 50% points), it becomes difficult
to generate any real concern about cell phone
radiation beyond its simple heating effect.
When my phone starts burning my ears, I'll start worrying, but not until then. As for the
"resonating molecules" idea: Sure, it has a
certain appeal, but that appeal does not survive
once you consider that in a liquid or solid, the
energy level of each molecule is closely coupled
to that of its neighbors. For that resonance to
be excited to a degree worth worrying about, a
molecule would have to absorb many tens of photons
before losing that excess energy to its neighbors.
But it the photon flux was that high, simple
heating would be the problem rather than the
resonant response.
Worry over cell phone radiation belongs to those
who need to worry about something to be happy. It
used to be 60 Hertz power lines, or microwave oven
emissions. There is no scientific basis for worry
about low GigaHertz radiation at low heating levels.
It is disappointing for this publication to miss critical data in the discussion and determine physics shows it can't cause cancer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an electrical professional that lectures medical academia for education credits doctors need for licensing, I want to add some basic data this publication and the discussion isn't including.
Humans and ecosystems aren't furniture in the room, all biologic systems are intricate electrical systems running at their own frequencies. The problem with the cell phone, wi fi or radio frequency interaction is that humans as well as ecosystems are low frequency uninsulated and unprotected electrical signals. When you electrically imposed frequencies on other frequencies that aren't protected there are a bunch of problems. Electromagnetic induction into the unprotected conductor called human, changing electrical parameters in the lower frequency and causing atoms or molecules to polarize at twice the frequency. I have imaged eddy currents at 60 Hz that would cause electrical failure in industrial environments.
There is a known heating effect with radio frequencies and safety codes say to avoid intentional stimulation of biologic tissues. Example studies have shown induced currents to cause nerve and muscle depolarization. What happens when nerves aren't working anywhere in the body?
Health Canada states they want to avoid the above but because they didn't know the cause or biologic plausibility, the science is incomplete. There are no mysterious heat loads in electrical applications.
The writer of this article did the same thing the wireless industry and governments have done, they made determinations without including the science. You can't complete the science and leave out the frequencies of biologic systems or whatever the radio frequencies are interacting with.
As a government trained and certified professional, this is a very serious issue that should be a national or international security issue. This planet and everything in it is dependent on a magnetic field, not a frequency bombardment of electromagnetics. No wonder we can't find the bodies of bees, are they getting lost, radiated or having their biology changed?
I love new technology but we pull wires and separate signals or conductors for reasons. Is it ok to compromise your children's future for profit? Here is a link to a press release that has been ramped up now that we know cause. http://www.thermoguy.com/blog/index.php?itemid=45
The world needs science to be pure and without compromise, you left science out of this discussion.
Thanks for the article, Michael Shermer. I completely agree. There is no ionizing radiation coming from a cell phone. Chemical bonds can not be broken or rearranged.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to RF heating - I suppose there is a correlation between heat and cancer. The room temperature thermal energy is about .027 electron volts at body temperature (KT/q) which is available for chemical interactions. Significant deviations from this occur very infrequently but do happen.
If the brain were raised to 106 degrees F, near death, this energy rises to like .028 electron volts. So one can expect if the brain were heated by electromagnetic radiation that there would be an extremely small increase of thermal events causing bond breakage over regular body temperature. But then we should also avoid saunas and steam baths and hot days without hats.
One other possibility not covered is the deformation of proteins at the surface of cells. These deformations can change the internal chemistry and even cause genes to turn on and off. If a typical RF cell phone has an RF field of 1 Volt per meter and a typical cell is 5 microns wide, this yields a voltage of about 5 microvolts across a cell. Can this be enough to cause a change in channel conduction at the surface of the cell?
The fact that the RF field is changing at a GHz rate, the voltage effect would be reversing also at that rate. Would this cause an averaging of the channel modulation if there was one?
Michael, for the people who have already made up their minds, you are insane. Worse, you are the enemy.
One more thing, nerve conduction causes potential drops of about 40 mV across a nerve cell which is needed to change ion channels in the cell. I commented that we could see maybe a 5 uv drop across a cell body. But the ion channels have a millisecond response time rather than a nanosecond response time, so would be expected to average the effects of the AC RF field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe brain and body are full of electric fields on the order of 40mv (the potential of a nerve impulse) of over a few microns which correspond to thousands of volts per meter at the cell phone antenna.
Also, the brain is humming with EEG voltage. You would think that the cell phone field would be completely lost in the noise of normal life.
This article is non-sense enriched with meaningless calculations and buzz-words. Nobody seriously studying the interaction of electromagnetic fields and living tissue has claimed that ionization effects play any role in it (in fact, in Europe most children learn in school that such radiation is non-ionizing, even without ever have heard the acronym QED). Possible pathways include the interaction with our nervous system, where electrical currents in the pA range and voltages of ca 100 mV serve as 'messengers'. As our nervous system controls the immune and endocrine system to a large part, modulating it or superimposing information by external artifical sources may well initiate physiological responses including cancer at its worst. A good introduction to this subject is given e.g. by Robert Becker ('Bodyelectric').
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShermer makes some significant errors in this column, and of the "wrong mistakes" type that he alludes to at the start. The "right" mistake, of course, is the one that leads you to serendipitous discoveries, as in the (re)discovery of penicillin and vulcanized rubber.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, there is the notion that epidemiological evidence indicates a causal connection; it does not and cannot do so. Epidemiological evidence can only indicate a correlation; subsequent research (or thought experiments supported by research) is necessary to determine whether the correlation is potentially causal, and if so, can try to reveal the nature of the cause.
Second, the argument that cell phones cannot cause cancer because of simple physics is misguided, and shows the dangers when one steps too far beyond the range of one's expertise. As noted in Stephen Hall's article in the same issue, genetic mutations are only one possible cause of cancer, and there's growing evidence that they are probably not the most common or most significant cause of cancer. Most diseases are far more complicated than single-gene mutations can explain, and it surprised me that there's any controversy remaining over this issue; the evidence seemed clear to many geneticists at least a decade ago.
As this example also reveals, arguing based purely on logic can lead scientists seriously astray; if the premise of the logic is flawed, the conclusion will only be right by chance. I generally admire Shermer's analyses, so perhaps these are just glitches that might have been caught if he had been more *ahem* skeptical about his own thought process.
I wonder how much Mr. Shermer was paid by the cell phone industry to write such a biased article! What is even more perplexing is the fact that such a poor written article from a scientific point of view was even allowed by the editors to be published in the most prestigious science journal in America! These are the kind of things that make you wonder: will we ever be able to get closer to truth?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“However, if they are absorbed by the body, something must be happening inside the body…”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpot on. Here's part of Wikipedia's trip down memory lane on the subject: “The use of high-frequency electric fields for heating … had been proposed in 1934, for example US patent 2,147,689…”
So for over 75 years, we've know that radios can warm things up. Until the cancer issue was considered, almost all scientists would've said that exactly 100.00% of the energy went into heat, period, because during this time period we have gotten extremely good at analyzing chemical-level effects of those little quanta of radio energy: collectively they can heat; individually their frequency isn't high enough to cross the threshold for any chemical effect. That would've been, and for many still is, the definitive answer to your thought.
Now, concerned researchers are studying whether the number is 99.99???% and some tiny fraction causes non-warming effects. This presents a very difficult research issue: there's a quantifiable effect from known physics/chemistry/biology, but you're looking for some tiny fraction of the energy causing other effects, for which you don't know of any physics, chem or biology that would cause them. Needle in a haystack, as it were, except that you have only the vaguest of notions as to whether there's actually a needle there. Call it Einstein's definition of insanity or the value of persistence. Science. Lots of dead ends.
And about the heating: my 1200-watt microwave oven is designed to distribute its heat evenly in the leftover soup I put in it, while a phone is designed to aim its ~ 1 watt energy elsewhere. Both may have spots that are warmer than others. But the brain is designed to move heat around: ordinary working of our brains generates heat that needs to be moved elsewhere. So again, it's hard to imagine much heating, and if warming caused brain cancers, anybody who thinks as much as you do would already have died from it.
Seems to me that microwave radiation (think cell phones) is quite capable of exciting (heating) H2O including a micro-environment (think brain cells viz brain cell proteins) with denaturing results. And we all know that proteins do indeed interact with DNA so........... an area for further research!?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's hard to believe that Scientific American editors approved such a poor article. The arrogant simplicity of the author's approach is similar to that employed by hate radio and TV hosts. This magazine should demand a higher standard of scientific journalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sold by this article. It's a great example of simplistic reporting. I'll keep researching.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am scared!I was reading more here http://www.infodisease.com/Mobile-Phone-cause-Cancer-myth-and-truth.php
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting reading people disagreeing with this article. To refute it, they simply start using exactly the same arguments that this article has precisely disproved.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo say there is a possibility of low-energy radiation to affect biochemical processes and interact with bio-molecules inside the human body is entirely missing the point. Yes, of course, ANYTHING is possible, including possibility of an asteroid destroying our entire planet within our life time. But what is realistic?
First of all, there is nothing magical about EMs used for telecommunication. It is the same EM wave we have everywhere, save for its wavelength, it is the same "material" as we get from the sun, the lamp, the UV in tanning beds, etc etc. EM wave is an EM wave is an EM wave.
So you want to study interaction of EM waves with biological matter? Then why spend $24 million dollars studying cell phone users? The EM radiation from a phone next to your head is in the sub 0.1W levels, while what you get from the sun while standing outside during the day is closer to 50W. Worrying about cell phone radiation causing cancer is like worrying about the toxic effects of minuscule amounts of chlorine touching you, while on other hand you go swimming in a chlorinated pool everyday.
And you really want to be scared? Forget cell phones: we are bombarded by cosmic rays day and night, which come from outer space, and are of such high ionization energy that they are responsible for some of the random memory errors and other inexplicable errors that happen in electronic devices. The levels of these entirely unavoidable rays have been correlated with rise and fall of cancer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am still waiting for WHO to announce we should all live in lead-lined suits to avoid risk of cancer.
Cell phones cannot cause cancer because they do not produce ionizing radiation. Likewise, burning fossil fuels cannot cause global warming because the total amount of heat released on the Earth by burning fossil fuels is insufficient to alter the planet's thermal equilibrium. QED. If potential cause cannot create the effect by the mechanism we are aware of, it cannot create the effect at all. That doesn't sound very skeptical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is clearly a confusing area. The mechanism by which non-ionizing radiation can induce free radical mediated damage is through the their interaction with enzymatic systems. Remember, enzyme systems are designed to lower chemical activation energies for all chemical reaction. One of he classic systems is bigeminate decay. Application of an electromagnetic to an enzyme system results in a large increase of reactive free radical species from the synaptic cleft-potentially overwhelming the cells normal free radical scavanging systems. In my own NIH funded research, we published article after article in peer reviewed journals, most having to do with alterations in blood brain barrier function. One of our most alarming observations was that microwave radiation seems to activate pinocytotic activity in the capillaries of the brain (the blood bain barrier). If mice were exposed to microwave radiation during a Japanese Encephalitis Virus viremia(a neurotropic virus that is usually not fatal in mice), there was a dose dependent increase in mortality from 0% up to 80%. So, when your sick, and have the worst headache of your life, it might not be the best time to stick your head into an MRI scanner. Dave
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjshuncke, please read the WHO's article on EHS: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs296/en/index.html
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt no point does it identify a causality between actual EMF exposure and the symptoms reported by EMS sufferers. In fact, it notes quite clearly that studies have not shown EHS sufferers are able to identify EMF radiation any more than non EHS sufferers. It only notes that sufferers self-report EMF radiation as the cause of their ailment. Just because the syndrome is recognized by name does not mean it's causality is verified.
How long did it take for the 'whole world' to realise that the world was round? This issue is no different. As someone who IS sensitive to non-ionising radiation it is pretty ridiculous to listen to the nay-sayers. The amount of interest that someone pays to something is the extent to which they are personally involved. For me it is most interesting to keep abreast of the newest findings. To the author let's invisage you having a seafood allergy and being dumped into the middle of the ocean. You have sent out a distress call for help and the scientists say 'wow' we're not coming until we figure out the mechanism of your phenomenon. Quite frankly I don't think you would give a damn. The point is, it does affect us, not just me but thousands like me, so something is going on. We need to be protected while the bureaucrats and the rest figure it out. There are hundreds of scientific studies that have been done and the proof is there. IARC classified RF from cellphones as a 2B carcinogen on the 31/5/11. So it goes to show some people just don't have common sense. I heard years ago that a cellphone can cause cancer, when I get a headache from holding the phone to my ear, I do not need a statement from IARC to make me believe it. Most people that have studied this are able to think out the box and apply their knowledge while others cannot. So for those of you who just cannot think out of the box - rather zip it. It might put you in better stead in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExcept even the WHO notes that the majority of studies conducted indicate EHS individuals cannot detect EMF any more accurately than non EHS individuals. They have even gone so far as to conclude the symptoms that self described sufferers of EHS presented with were not correlated with EMF exposure, but likely arise from environmental factors unrelated to EHS such as but not limited to: flicker from fluorescent lights, poor indoor air quality/stress in workplace environment, and pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions resulting from worrying about EHS health effects. Physicians are advised to treat these individuals based on the health symptoms as opposed to the patients' perceived need for reducing EMF levels in their home or workplace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe WHO has cataloged <a href="http://www.pongresearch.com/sar-and-cell-phone-radiation">cell phone radiation</a> as a possible carcinogen but have a hard time to believe anything from anybody after the largest study on Denmark, was found to publish false results by a Swedish journalist. So meanwhile this gets cleared out, I opted to get Pong Research cases, which <a href="http://www.pongresearch.com/how-pong-works.html">reduce SAR</a> by up to 95% and their cell phone cases are the only ones tested and certified to work.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually @thomopolous, it hasn't classified EMF as a carcinogen, only as a possibly carcinogenic. Big difference.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Several large multinational epidemiological studies have been completed or are ongoing, including case-control studies and prospective cohort studies examining a number of health endpoints in adults. The largest retrospective case-control study to date on adults, Interphone, coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), was designed to determine whether there are links between use of mobile phones and head and neck cancers in adults. The international pooled analysis of data gathered from 13 participating countries found no increased risk of glioma or meningioma with mobile phone use of more than 10 years. There are some indications of an increased risk of glioma for those who reported the highest 10% of cumulative hours of cell phone use, although there was no consistent trend of increasing risk with greater duration of use. The researchers concluded that biases and errors limit the strength of these conclusions and prevent a causal interpretation. Based largely on these data, IARC has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), a category used when a causal association is considered credible, but when chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/index.html#
It can take dozens of mutations before cancer developes..it can take decades to show up..like with cigaretter smoke and asbestos. No kidding, there is more than ionizing radiation that causes mutations. I'm just shocked that anyone here thinks cell phones and "smart" meters are harmless. So many scientists have put their reputations and funding at risk to speak out against the "smart" meters. And yet "smart"meters are being forced on the homes of people around the world..."smart" meters that emit the same type of non-ionizing radiation as cell phone substations....only it's operating 24/7. The only safety test the United States FCC did was a thermal test for this junk....I guess people would prefer to believe those that stand to make a killing in profits..rather than scientists. And people approve of government oppression forcing a class 2b carcinogen onto every home in America.. Throw you cell phone away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm just wondering though if it's true that electromagnetic radiation promotes the growth of cancer or that it indirectly leads to it wouldn't it be true that since it's a fact that the frequency of visible light is larger than the electromagnetic radiation from cellular phones that visible light would be even more dangerous?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt just seems highly unlikely that radiation lying that low on the spectrum could cause harm. Is it true that the frequency is less than that of visible light? I read that from several sources but I'm not sure if it's true.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf it is it seems like that would be enough evidence to convince anyone that they're not harmful.
If radiation BELOW the frequency of visible light is harmful then we would need to live in the dark to be safe, no?