It is far more likely that it is due to numerous other causes, some even with proven links – there is, however, still no links to mobile phone use, and no known mechanism by which it could even happen. Non-Ionizing Radiation causing cancer is probably as close to a physical impossibility as you get.
Besides, there are numerous of other sources of radiation that is much stronger, including visible lights. You should ban visible light before you ban mobile phones! This stuff is ridiculous,
Cell phones communicate over the 2.4 GHz and 5.0 GHz bands. Those are microwave radiation, which is non-ionizing. It's impossible for it to cause cancer. It's literally less possible for it to cause cancer than visible light.
Gonna have to call you up on the cell phones I'm afraid. It has been pretty conclusively proven that there is no link between cell phone radiation and cancer [1]. Unless you call a study of 420,000 people over 20 years insignificant...
And as for a mechanical explanation why cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer: It's because the radiation type used is non-ionising! As for thermal effects, it's orders of magnitude less than standing in direct sunlight. It's basic physics. (Well perhaps not the ionising radiation part, Einstein got a Nobel for the photoelectric effect...)
This myth has been debunked as pure fear-mongering time and time again. The only slight recommendations that are issued are for longer term studies - simply because cell phones haven't really been in heavy usage for more than 20 years. Pure fear of the unknown, despite study after study showing no effect.
Luckily there are boatloads of other studies that show the exact same outcome.
Here's one from 2016 [1]
Overall evaluations show that the current evidence for a causal association between cancer and exposure to mobile radiation is weak and unconvincing. Some of the studies establishing association had significant limitations and weaknesses and, therefore, remain unreliable. Studies have highlighted that using these phones for about 10 years is unlikely to cause cancer.
I agree with you as to the conclusion: I don't believe that cell-phones cause notably higher rates of cancer. I believe that based on the studies, as I think you do.
The problem with the article, and perhaps the reasoning in your comment, is that it assumes that ionizing radiation is the sole cause of cancer. The article implies that cancer studies that consider anything other than ionizing radiation are a waste of time and money.
I believe the debate as to whether there are non-radiation causes, catalysts or contributors to cancer is very much open, and I appreciate the work that people do to investigate these possibilities.
The best argument I can think of is "cells have sensors for EMF that lead to genetic expression changes, the results of which could lead to cancer" (there is plenty of ambiguous literature on how cellular response can increase the risk of cancer).
The argument "since cell phones don't emit non-ionizing radiation, they can't cause cancer" is simply incorrect.
If you discovered a mechanism by which it was possible for a cell phone to cause cancer, you'd win a Nobel Prize in physics.
Not "you discovered that they did, in fact, cause cancer"; just discovering a way that it is physically possible for them to do so.
This dates back to Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect: it's easy to show (and the only thing consistent with all of 20th century physics!) that light can only cause molecular damage if individual photons carry enough energy, which in turn only happens if the radiation is of sufficiently high frequency (like UV light, X-Rays, or gamma radiation.) Any radio signal from a cell phone isn't. End of discussion.
Unless you are being actually cooked by a microwave, your cell phone does not and cannot cause cancer.
"Radiation" is a scary word for non experts, but the California Health Department should know better.
It's not mental gymnastics at all. Numerous studies have failed to show a link between cell phone use and cancer, and the mechanism by which x-rays cause cancer doesn't work with higher-wavelength light. It just doesn't have enough energy to damage DNA.
The obvious example is that UV is ionizing, but visible light is non-ionizing. Spend an hour in a tanning bed and there's obvious skin damage. Spend a day under office lights and there isn't.
you aren't responding to someone proposing that cell phones cause cancer. they were refuting a weak argument that it is impossible, with an example of one kind of unanticipated interaction that could cause such an effect.
ie, saying that cell phone radiation doesn't cause cancer (or other negative effect) because the radiation is not ionizing, is a straw man- like saying that cigarettes cannot possibly cause cancer because the red glow of the cherry is also of sub-ionizing frequency.
None of the studies I've ever seen on this have proposed a mechanism by which radiation from a cellular phone causes cancer, which seems to be a bit of a hurdle given that some novel mechanism would be necessary (as far as I'm aware, the radiation emitted by a cell phone is well below -- orders of magnitude below -- the necessary level of energy to break chemical bonds, which is, well, sort of a prerequisite for radiation to cause cancer).
Non-ionizing radiation, like the one from cell towers or your smartphone (or radio signals, or TV, or even from power lines) does not cause cancer. It just can't cause cancer, as it can't even rip off a single electron from an atom (definition of non-ionizing).
Actually, physics community agrees just fine that the possibility of non-ionizing radiation causing cancer is real (I am not aware of any papers you can point to that say otherwise, but am happy to read and evaluate if you point me to them). After all, things other than radiation cause cancer, so it does seem unlikely that non-ionizing radiation would somehow be magically excluded from that list!
Yes, I saw you mentioned heating. That's certainly the first place biologists would start, if there were a solid epidemiological case. however, given that your body has tons of receptors, some of which respond to low frequency radiation, so in theory there could be any number of causal mechanisms.
(you should be aware: I personally think cell phones don't cause cancer, through any mechanism, I'm just making the point that there is zero evidence non-ionizing radiation can't cause cancer, there aren't any [reliable] examples of it doing so, either. There is simply no reliable data to make a reasoned determination, either way, because the biology of cellular response to non-ionizing radiation is complex, so making causal claims is very hard without good experimental evidence).
The particular model chosen in the article reflects physical reality, and the physical reality of it is that cell phones do not produce ionizing radiation. There is no debate as to whether this is correct, because this is how we see the world operating.
As the article states, you only start running into ionizing radiation at much higher energy levels, the kind you are exposed to just walking outside in sunlight. The link between sun exposure and skin cancer is well-established. The link between cell phone exposure and any cancer is non-existent.
But I've read a lot of comments, over the years, to the effect that non-ionizing radiation simply can't be a factor, because it doesn't remove electrons and break chemical bonds.
And my own, very limited but -- for me, at least, elucidating -- educational experience has been that that is not the case. Non-ionizing radiation can affect chemical reactions.
So, if cell phone radiation is not risk factor in cancer, the argument needs to go further than, "It's non-ionizing."
Your mention of the energy level / quantity of the non-ionizing radiation involved in the link I managed to find, I find to be a pertinent difference.
Anyway, sorry for any annoyance.
P.S. I upvoted your response, by the way. I appreciate it, and I didn't mean to come across as confrontational, if I did.
>There are other mechanisms by which non-ionizing radiation can induce cancers, such as the one I've described.
Link please, there are no proven mechanisms such as you describe I am aware of. Your only link points to sun exposure and UVB rays which are near ionizing and cause cancer through DNA damage based on photon energy.
Your example of a laser vs led is on point because its purely based on inverse-square, watt per kg and and thermal heating of tissue which is the only known mechanism which cellphone RF frequencies can cause tissue damage and only at orders of magnitude more power levels.
I thought it was interesting that they pulled out the old physicist trope, "X-rays generate radiation that causes cancer. Cell phones don't generate that kind of radiation. So it's unlikely they cause cancer" (paraphrase of a quote from the article). That's wholly unconvincing. It's assuming there's only one mechanism leading to cancer: high frequency radiation. We actually don't know much about the relationship of low-frequency, low-power radiation and cancer. More importantly, there could be a mechanism that is unknown to physics and biology which could make cell phones cause cancer. For example, we do know, for a fact, that using a cell phone heats the tissue surrounding your ear, and that the body has known heat-damage-response pathways that when activated, lead to tumors. So that alone is a plausible mechanism that should be studied further, presuming the epidemiological studies show there is some correlation between using a cell phone and having cancer, that can't be more easily explained by other factors, such as lifestyle or other forms of exposure.
That said, the followup point about epidemiological studies is also pretty suspect. The phone technology has changed dramatically over the years, and much of the studies are based on self-reporting. No carefully controlled clinical trial has been carried out. However, the studies that have been carried out do suggest, if not prove, that the increased incidence of cancer, if it exists at all, is a very small effect, barely statistically significant even in a well-controlled, high-population study.
Making policy like Berkeley is doing just isn't supported by the science- there are far more risky things in Berkeley, like inhaling secondhand smoke on Telegraph or driving on Ashby.
Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?
Besides, there are numerous of other sources of radiation that is much stronger, including visible lights. You should ban visible light before you ban mobile phones! This stuff is ridiculous,
reply