Study proves there is no link between Cell Phone usage and Brain Cancer - Polidicks

[release][img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/308988/thumbs/r-CELL-PHONES-BRAIN-TUMORS-large570.jpg[/img] A new study is throwing another wrench into the cell phone-cancer debate. Despite the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)'s decision to classify cell phones as a possible carcinogen earlier this year, a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology shows that cell phone use doesn't seem to increase the risk of a noncancerous brain tumor. A study of nearly 3 million Danish adults showed that those who used a cell phone for more than 11 years were not more likely to develop a noncancerous brain tumor, called an acoustic neuroma or a vestibular schwannoma, than people who don't use a cell phone or only started using one recently. Even though acoustic neuromas are noncancerous, scientists say they are still important in determining whether there is a cancer risk from cell phones, according to Reuters. And even more, tumors were not more frequent on the side of the head where the cell phone was most commonly used, nor did the tumor size have anything to do with the amount of cell phone use, according to the study. But we're not out of the woods yet - study researcher Dr. Joachim Schuz, of the World Health Organization's IARC (the same organization that classified cell phones as a possible carcinogen) said that even long-term cell phone users in the study haven't been using the devices long enough to completely rule out a cancer-cell phone link.[/release] Source: [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/15/cell-phone-brain-tumor_n_900068.html]Huffington Post[/url] It's about time.

It's not phones you gotta to watch out for, it's that new-fangled wi-fi thingamajig.

A study disproved the study that disproved the study that proved cell phones cause brain cancer. Gee, I feel like we're going in circles.

There are plenty of things out there that do cause cancer but mobile phone usage is almost certainly not one of them, and if it does the risk is tiny there's no established mechanism by which microwaves could cause brain cancer, they're not ionising radiation.

I shall now call about this to my friends while holding one cellphone at each ear.

[QUOTE=JustGman;32879237]It's not phones you gotta to watch out for, it's that new-fangled wi-fi thingamajig.[/QUOTE] My house is about 1 minute's drive away from a cell tower and I don't have dain bramage

Well that was a lot of bad cell phone conversations for no reason.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;32879356]I shall now call about this to my friends while holding one cellphone at each ear.[/QUOTE] [img]http://i.imgur.com/Txh6K.png[/img]

This has to be at least the 15th or so study to show it

[img]http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cell_phones.png[/img] Had to be posted And I'm gonna have to bet IARC classifying cellphones as a cause of cancer is related to "dont cut our budget" in some way

Honestly, as we're going into smartphones replacing regular phones, people won't spend as much time with a high-powered radio transmitter stuck to the side of their head. Text and data already represent way more phone use than actual talk time. With the brain-proximity issue reduced, the health costs won't be any worse than what we already get for spending our lives awash in radio waves.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;32879713]Honestly, as we're going into smartphones replacing regular phones, people won't spend as much time with a high-powered radio transmitter stuck to the side of their head. Text and data already represent way more phone use than actual talk time. With the brain-proximity issue reduced, the health costs won't be any worse than what we already get for spending our lives awash in radio waves.[/QUOTE] Like? none? If you would actually measure the output of a phone while talking, you would probably get something less than a milli-ampere of effect The "microwaves" stuff is bullshit

lmao a single study can't "prove" anything anyone who disagrees probably failed 8th grade science. no single study has ever been enough to prove one thing or another on its own.

[img]http://i.huffpost.com/gen/308988/thumbs/r-CELL-PHONES-BRAIN-TUMORS-large570.jpg[/img] "There's some creep taking my picture."

[QUOTE=Tobba;32879900]Like? none? If you would actually measure the output of a phone while talking, you would probably get something less than a milli-ampere of effect The "microwaves" stuff is bullshit[/QUOTE] You do realize the all cellular phone networks use microwave transceivers? Never the less, the amount of output produced by a handset poses no danger.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;32881016]You do realize the all cellular phone networks use microwave transceivers? Never the less, the amount of output produced by a handset poses no danger.[/QUOTE] Yeah, microwaves don't usually penetrate very deeply into human flesh, let alone skull bones. i thought this was common knowledge

No shit, who the hell actually thought this? A cell phones transmitter doesn't create ionizing radiation and cannot cause cancer.

[QUOTE=Lazor;32880212]lmao a single study can't "prove" anything anyone who disagrees probably failed 8th grade science. no single study has ever been enough to prove one thing or another on its own.[/QUOTE] Gravity? Prove it.

It's impossible to prove a negative the media is terrible at reporting on science we should all know this by now

[QUOTE=Lazor;32880212]lmao a single study can't "prove" anything anyone who disagrees probably failed 8th grade science. no single study has ever been enough to prove one thing or another on its own.[/QUOTE] yeah but there have been loads of studies saying there's no evidence for cancer caused by phone radiation [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/us-cancer-phones-idUSTRE7606GX20110701[/url] [url]http://www.science20.com/adaptive_complexity/cell_phones_brain_cancer_evidence-63951[/url] the vast majority all say there's no link [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] it can't "prove" but it does suggest, and lots of suggestions pointing in the same direction become some sort of proof [editline]21st October 2011[/editline] and yes zeke the media is shit at science reporting in general

There are many studies showing that nonionizing radiation can be quite harmful. Increased leukemia rates in children with exposure to AM radio transmitters [url]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/166/3/270.full[/url] Biological effects of power line fields (New York State Department of Health report) [url]http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0735/ML073510363.pdf[/url] Increased incidence of malignant melanoma of the skin in workers in a telecommunications industry. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1009703/[/url] Effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields on the activity of ornithine decarboxylase in developing chicken embryos [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302459896051744[/url] The damage is not from the breaking apart of ionic bonds, as it is with ionizing radiation. Research has shown a different, but equally disturbing trend - nonionizing radiation causes a [b]stress response [/b]in the body. As the stress response is exhausted due to repeated radiation exposure, the body's immune system begins to falter, allowing diseases that would otherwise not occur, to occur easily in otherwise healthy persons. Evidence has also shown that nonionizing radiation has an effect on cell division, affecting embryos and causing permanently stunted growth and development later in life. (I highly recommend the book "Cross Currents" by Dr. Becker for more information. The guy is [url=http://www.nysun.com/obituaries/robert-becker-84-raised-concerns-over-power-lines/79741/]very credible[/url]; he published dozens of often-cited scientific papers in his lifetime.) Yes, there are many studies that supposedly disprove any possible risks or harm from nonionizing radiation. It's all about who you're willing to believe. This is the way I see it: Scientists stand to gain nothing from publishing a study that shows that nonionizing radiation is harmful, other than ridicule from the mainstream establishment of the scientific community that prefers the status quo, as well as harassment from energy companies that find the results too "inconvenient". No one wants to be the one to admit that their work is causing people harm, and no one wants to be subjected to lawsuits, so people in inconvenient positions will fight at all costs to discredit the information, no matter how true. Scientists also have to face criticism from a public that would rather remain with their heads in the sand than admit they are killing themselves and causing untold genetic damage to their developing children. On the other hand, scientists stand to gain a LOT from pushing out studies that support the already-established mindset that nonionizing radiation is harmless. They get kickbacks and nods from the energy companies while getting support from the dogmatic scientists who would vehemently attack anything outside their old narrow view of the world. Remember the tobacco industry fought long and hard for decades and even funded fake studies, to "prove" cigarettes were harmless. It would not surprise me then if the energy companies, being many times more powerful than the cig industry, would do the same. I'm going to side with the scientists advising caution. We were all thrown into this big electromagnetic experiment at the advent of the electric revolution without so much as a thought of whether it would cause us harm. Innovation and progress were much more important and people just accepted without question that it couldn't, shouldn't, and won't hurt us. That is how it is with any new technology - it is put to market first, and the risks assessed much later. Years down the road, the human species will probably realize that was a mistake, just like we have many times before in the field of medicine. Don't forget we used to give [i]mercury[/i] as an antibiotic. We now know that causes brain damage and the drug (Mercurochrome) has since been banned in the U.S.

[QUOTE=cloudbuster;32892100]There are many studies showing that nonionizing radiation can be quite harmful. Increased leukemia rates in children with exposure to AM radio transmitters [url]http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/166/3/270.full[/url] Biological effects of power line fields (New York State Department of Health report) [url]http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0735/ML073510363.pdf[/url] Increased incidence of malignant melanoma of the skin in workers in a telecommunications industry. [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1009703/[/url] Effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields on the activity of ornithine decarboxylase in developing chicken embryos [url]http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0302459896051744[/url] The damage is not from the breaking apart of ionic bonds, as it is with ionizing radiation. Research has shown a different, but equally disturbing trend - nonionizing radiation causes a [b]stress response [/b]in the body. As the stress response is exhausted due to repeated radiation exposure, the body's immune system begins to falter, allowing diseases that would otherwise not occur, to occur easily in otherwise healthy persons. Evidence has also shown that nonionizing radiation has an effect on cell division, affecting embryos and causing permanently stunted growth and development later in life. (I highly recommend the book "Cross Currents" by Dr. Becker for more information. The guy is [url=http://www.nysun.com/obituaries/robert-becker-84-raised-concerns-over-power-lines/79741/]very credible[/url]; he published dozens of often-cited scientific papers in his lifetime.) Yes, there are many studies that supposedly disprove any possible risks or harm from nonionizing radiation. It's all about who you're willing to believe. This is the way I see it: Scientists stand to gain nothing from publishing a study that shows that nonionizing radiation is harmful, other than ridicule from the mainstream establishment of the scientific community that prefers the status quo, as well as harassment from energy companies that find the results too "inconvenient". No one wants to be the one to admit that their work is causing people harm, and no one wants to be subjected to lawsuits, so people in inconvenient positions will fight at all costs to discredit the information, no matter how true. Scientists also have to face criticism from a public that would rather remain with their heads in the sand than admit they are killing themselves and causing untold genetic damage to their developing children. On the other hand, scientists stand to gain a LOT from pushing out studies that support the already-established mindset that nonionizing radiation is harmless. They get kickbacks and nods from the energy companies while getting support from the dogmatic scientists who would vehemently attack anything outside their old narrow view of the world. Remember the tobacco industry fought long and hard for decades and even funded fake studies, to "prove" cigarettes were harmless. It would not surprise me then if the energy companies, being many times more powerful than the cig industry, would do the same. I'm going to side with the scientists advising caution. We were all thrown into this big electromagnetic experiment at the advent of the electric revolution without so much as a thought of whether it would cause us harm. Innovation and progress were much more important and people just accepted without question that it couldn't, shouldn't, and won't hurt us. That is how it is with any new technology - it is put to market first, and the risks assessed much later. Years down the road, the human species will probably realize that was a mistake, just like we have many times before in the field of medicine. Don't forget we used to give [i]mercury[/i] as an antibiotic. We now know that causes brain damage and the drug (Mercurochrome) has since been banned in the U.S.[/QUOTE] Yeah, but there's a difference between high-voltage power lines and a teeny antenna in a phone. And no one is stupid enough to put their head 2 inches from a power line. Put your tinfoil hat back on.

~

[QUOTE=cloudbuster;32892100]Evidence has also shown that nonionizing radiation has an effect on cell division, affecting embryos and causing permanently stunted growth and development later in life. (I highly recommend the book "Cross Currents" by Dr. Becker for more information. The guy is [URL="http://www.nysun.com/obituaries/robert-becker-84-raised-concerns-over-power-lines/79741/"]very credible[/URL]; he published dozens of often-cited scientific papers in his lifetime.)[/quote] I was taking your post reasonably seriously up until here. Let's have a quick look at reviews on amazon, shall we "The author goes a long way toward finding a scientific basis for [B]acupuncture, homeopathy, and 'faith' healing[/B]--at the very least, they involve the electromagnetic field in and around the body." yeah, this is bullshit, sorry

[QUOTE=cloudbuster;32892948]The leukemia study found a doubling in leukemia rates at a dosage of only 1.4 milligauss over a 24 hour period. We receive a daily dose of 2 milligauss from power lines, without ever being directly next to them. Electric fields produce magnetic fields that radiate outward, and this ambient energy penetrates houses and buildings. Everything inside your house is currently receiving the residential 60 Hz power line energy, including your body. This is common knowledge and you can confirm this with any professional frequency meter like a Trifield meter used in the electronics industry. Electronics testing devices often have to account for this ambient energy by filtering it out.[/QUOTE] So wait, you're telling me that something that is everywhere is carcinogenic, and so all it does is increase the chances everywhere, so i have the same heightened chance of getting leukemia as someone in England. If something goes up everywhere, there is no point considering it as a cause.

here's something to consider : even if all this paranoid crap had something to it and there genuinely was a small increase in cancer risk, why would we even care? cars are dangerous. people die in car accidents every day. even with advances in safety features and awareness campaigns, accidents happen - but motor vehicles are way too useful for the world to just give up on them now. our industrial society couldn't function without them, and if we banned them right now, the economy would suffer hugely and people would die. if there is a risk of cancer from phones, it's miniscule. there are a million other things that do cause cancer and that can and should be avoided, but the fact is, phones and wifi are far too useful to get rid of now.

And then two weeks later there will be another study that links it to brain cancer again. I take these sort of studies with a grain of salt.

You can link anything to anything. You can link the number of child births per year the number of car crashes per year and claim that as more people crash cars more children are born. Sure, an extreme example, but what the studies claiming that EM radiation is harmful insinuate isn't far off from the basic idea of what I just said. There is a common phrase used to describe this scenario: "Correlation does not imply causation." Just because you can put two statistics next to each other and scrutinize them for patterns doesn't mean that the pattern means anything significant. This is why 90 percent of scientific studies are wrong, and its just another way to prove false claims. You should always be wary of this when reading articles such as the ones above.

[QUOTE=cloudbuster;32892948]The leukemia study found a doubling in leukemia rates at a dosage of only 1.4 milligauss over a 24 hour period. We receive a daily dose of 2 milligauss from power lines, without ever being directly next to them. ...[/QUOTE] And you also receive a "dose" of 300 to 600 milligauss from just being on Earth, I also have magnets on my desk that have a field strength of 4.5 gauss so really I should be dead by now. Edit: Maybe I am dead and the electromagnetism has bought me back as a zombie.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;32893421]here's something to consider : even if all this paranoid crap had something to it and there genuinely was a small increase in cancer risk, why would we even care?[/QUOTE] We should care because if each device we use poses a small risk, together they pose a large risk and because finding out shit is scientific and science is neat