The “some publications” nonsense would literally require overturning century-old radio physics. Some publications will always find everything to be carcinogenic; this is how statistics work.
In the real world, thermal radiation can’t ionise. (Cell phones may be carcinogenic due to their materials and the behaviours they induce.)
> Whether the effect was large or small, there is a fundamental scientific question: how does non-ionizing radiation cause cancer? The fact that it can requires better models of how EM waves and biological matter interact.
This is wrong. Non-ionizing radiation obviously causes cancer. "Ionizing radiation" for photons is (somewhat arbitrarily) defined as photons with >10 eV. That's far ultraviolet, far beyond anything in sunlight that has passed the atmosphere. But sunlight still gives you cancer.
There are any number of ways that cells and genes can be disrupted by non-ionizing radiation. Just disrupting in-progress reactions can eventually damage cells, and that doesn't require anything nearly as dramatic as ionizing an atom. At the bare minimum, all waves >1 GHz interact with and are absorbed by biological matter.
However the low-microwave frequencies from cell phones and wifi are hugely innocuous in addition to being crazy low power. They practically only interact through heating. I'm about as worried by the visible radiation from a cell phone's screen as I am from the transmitter. Hell, I'm pretty positive the local heating from the CPU getting hot will be more likely to contribute to cancer.
The plausible mechanism is that EM radiation causes tissue to warm up, which can damage it. This is well documented, and will happen already at frequencies far below what a mobile phone uses.
> All we have at the moment is an uptick in a particular kind of cancer without a plausible mechanism how do we assign that to cell phones?
Because of the location of the tumors.
> Why don't we see a similar uptick everywhere for example instead of just in england?
Because that's where this research was done.
Look, no matter what this is a very subtle affair. The only thing that this research has done - according to me - is to move the needle from 'instant dismiss' to 'maybe more and more careful research should be done' to determine the exact magnitude of the effect.
> In other words, current investigations do not support evidence of harm.
You missed the exception he mentions. "IARC is the outlier in this respect, having determined in 2011 that EMFs are ‘possibly carcinogenic to humans’." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK304630/)
They concluded that "With 'limited evidence' for carcinogenicity in humans based on an increased risk of glioma – a malignant brain tumour – among heavy users of mobile telephones, radiofrequency electromagnetic fields were classified as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans'"
This suggests more studies are required from a biological perspective in order to form an conclusions either way, which is his point in the opinion piece.
> Non-physicist discovers QAM, is confused. Again, no explanation given of why this might make a difference.
The full quote is;
"Furthermore, a comprehensive Canadian review of the same evidence states that some of the new RF-EMF technologies—such as innovations in radio frequency ‘pulsing,’ ‘polarisation’ and ‘modulation’—are so new that biological scientists have not been able to keep up—that is, no studies yet exist of these new technologies’ biological effects." (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03784...)
The point he's making here, once again, is that this is a multi-disciplinary problem and we need further study from a biological perspective as there is not enough evidence to conclude either way.
You seem to think that, because he's not a physicist, that he has no idea what he's talking about.
>We dismiss claims about mobiles being bad for our health – but is that because studies showing a link to cancer have been cast into doubt by the industry?
No. Industry probably casts doubt even when it's undeserved, but there is no reason to believe claims that mobile phone radiation causes cancer.
Even if the evidence provided would prove true, it would not matter. Reported effect sizes are so small it would not be reason to change behavior.
Microwave radiation has multiple potential ways it can change biological function, not just thermal effects. But things like EM radiation as calcium-channel antagonist works only with cells in vitro. If you are Multicellular organism with skin, there is no evidence that you are in any danger.
> one day science may find that previously undetected thing that cellphones emit and the human body absorbs.
This makes no sense. While it's easy to argue that cell phones are safe because of non-ionizing radiation, that's now how science works. The reason we feel that cell phones are safe is that we have 25 years of evidence showing no statistically significant link between cell phone use and cancer.
Even if there's a magical field that a cell phone produces that causes cancer (something we can't detect in any way), we'd still detect that cancer with a higher rate than in a population that doesn't use cell phones, or uses them with a lower frequency.
> one can't rule out cancer effects at other, non-ionizong frequencies through unknown mechanisms
Well, you can. That's the whole point.
You pose the hypothesis "unknown mechanisms in non-ionizing radiation cause cancer". Then you do the research, and then when you don't find the cancer effects, you rule out these "unknown mechanisms".
That's science.
> There's also effects of the heat given off by the phone heating your head, but I ignore that.
And so does everybody else, because heat doesn't cause cancer.
Additionally, the phone heats your head? Citation? And not just "well it's microwaves so it probably heats things around it by some billion-thousandth of a degree", but an actual citation of mobile phone radiation heating your head, preferably in a manner that is still somewhat significant when compared to the tiny temperature fluctuations caused by natural cell processes (as, you know, if a mitochondria generates more heat than a nearby phone, the point is probably moot, no?).
> There's literally no mechanism known to PHYSICS that would result in cell phone radiation causing brain tumors.
False. We don't know that any form of microwave radiation can induce brain tumors, but we certainly don't now that they can't. It needs experiments, which are being performed (on the public) as I write this.
What we do know is that microwave radiation induces nanoampere currents where absorbed. The exact details of the currents, and where and how absorbed determines their effects. Insisting PHYSICS is a legitimate substitute for experimention is a failing that has become increasingly common, lately.
> But it's also ridiculous to brush off all non-ionizing radiation as harmless.
I disagree. There's more than enough empirical data that shows non-ionizing radiation is safe. Consider, for example, how many people work at or live near MW emitters (like radio stations).
You don't find that populations around those emitters have higher incidents of health problems.
But further, we aren't finding an increase in tumors/cancers in places where people very commonly store their non-ionizing radiation devices (pants pockets).
Taken one step further, when you step out into the sunlight, you are being exposed to several watts worth at several frequencies of ionizing (UV) and non-ionizing radiation. Orders of magnitudes more than you'd see from any device. Yet, what we see is that people that work out in the sun most commonly experience skin cancer/damage and nothing else.
The fear over non-ionizing radiation comes from ignorance and nothing more.
To your bug example, yes, if you concentrate non-ionizing radiation up to 100W+ at a single point, it'll burn that point. But that's a strawman of the situation. No wireless tech is doing that in the slightest.
> If it was unsafe, we would probably know about it.
The article claims this is in fact the case. Quote:
"We are seeing increases in certain types of head and neck tumors in tumor registries, which may be at least partially attributable to the proliferation of cell phone radiation."
I've clicked a few cited papers and they are all behind a paywall, so I can't make my own opinion how justified this claim is.
>Radio simply cannot give you cancer. It's been proven. We understand the physics. It's been tested to death.
Actually, high exposure to radio sources (2G and 3G) have recently been found to cause cancer in male rats. It's unclear yet whether this effect carries over to humans.
> The electromagnetic fields produced by mobile phones are classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as possibly carcinogenic to humans.
So it's not settled science, even though there is some evidence pointing toward it not causing cancer.
> "Ah, the ever present fear of non-ionizing radiation."
On the cdc.gov resource you provided, I clicked on the link about "NIEHS research on possible health risks from cell phones". There I read this:
The NTP studies found that high exposure to RFR used by cell phones resulted in:
- Clear evidence of tumors in the hearts of male rats. The tumors were malignant schwannomas.
- Some evidence of tumors in the brains of male rats. The tumors were malignant gliomas.
- Some evidence of tumors in the adrenal glands of male rats. The tumors were benign, malignant, or complex combined pheochromocytoma.
I get that this study involved higher levels than what my cell phone should be exposing me to, "mice are not humans", etc., etc. But then here come some journalists saying my phone emits much higher radiation than I thought... are they really just evoking a bogeyman and nothing more? I'm not sure.
It takes a lot to win over my skepticism on a variety of topics -- particuarly when large corporations stand to gain or lose billions of dollars hinging on whether their product is GRAS or not -- and I suspect many others are the same.
I'd be very grateful for links to additional research on the topic of cell phones and non-ionizing radiation, if anyone has good ones to share.
Perhaps, but the Independent has a long history of posting spurious health and environment articles (e.g., "Mobile phone threat to honeybees", which was a massive press misunderstanding because CCD was such a headline-grabber at the time). Guilt by association is a real and valid reason to dismiss a news article about a complex scientific subject. Even the article itself mentions the general line:
> Late last week, the Mobile Operators Association dismissed Khurana's study as "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual". It believes he "does not present a balanced analysis" of the published science, and "reaches opposite conclusions to the WHO and more than 30 other independent expert scientific reviews".
People talk about the dangers of radiation, but electromagnetic radiation isn't the same kind of radiation we generally worry about. Anything that uses electricity and wires creates this kind of radiant energy, including pacemakers and implantable defibrillators.
That doesn't mean there is no potential for health risks, but thus far the science suggests no significant increase in risk. What's more, the mechanism for such health risks is likewise unclear as the wavelengths for cellphone radiation are quite long. It's also unclear why cellphones would cause problems but people living near radio transmitters wouldn't (and we'd have probably seen these effects by now, radio isn't exactly new).
Unfortunately, it takes a lot of work and a lot of time to build up long term clinical studies. In the meantime, all we can do is wait.
> What happens if we let people modify their microwaves and a terrorist uses his to give kids cancer!?!?
I know this was said in jest, but given the (generally unfounded) fears some people have about microwaves and cellphones I want to point out that exposure to unshielded microwave radiation isn't going to cause cancer (at least not any more than anything else that heats you up could somehow cause cancer) because microwave radiation is non-ionizing; you would need at least ultraviolet light for that (and UV-C or X-rays would be most effective).
The biggest danger with strong microwave radiation would be boiling your eyeballs as they lack the cooling most of your body has but contain significant amounts of water.
> but there’s no evidence Wi-Fi, cellphones or anything else radio related is hurting people
It seems like an attempt to do an epidemiological study would be highly compromised by everyday use washing out the exposure levels in the control group.
Or even a controlled double blind study. How would you even set up a double blinded experiment "do cellphones cause cancer" today?
>these findings never come from physicists or engineers working on wireless technologies
nor would I expect them to. if we are talking about cell damage, i'm not wanting to hear from an electrical engineer. i want to hear from a medical professional specializing in cellular activity. a cancer doctor, some sort of micro biologist, or something in that realm would be much more credible when discussing the damage of cells due to whatever cause.
Show me studies where these doctors are working with physicists to setup the RF in controlled environments to study the effects of the radio waves on cellular activity, then I'll be much more interested. There's just too much fringe people pushing this that my natrual inclinations is to not believe it. However, that's not to say that I am unwilling to change my mind if shown actual evidence versus what's there now. I'm just saying I haven't seen any.
> The leading independent organization on cancer causes says that current cell phones are "possible carcinogens"
It is crucial to understand what this actually means. the IARC classifications are valid but — particularly to lay people — incredibly misleading and pretty much useless. All that “possible carcinogen” means is that we haven’t yet collected sufficient evidence to discount harm. It’s not evidence of carcinogenicity at all. If anything it’s the opposite, because it means that, despite the existence of relevant studies, there hasn’t been any consistent demonstration of carcinogenic effect.
Furthermore, IARC only classifies risk itself, not hazard [1], nor dosage effects.
For context, IARC classifies sunlight exposure and processed meat consumption as “definitely carcinogenic” [2]. Despite this, regular exposure to sunlight is crucial for your health, and regular meat consumption is known to have little absolute effect on cancer risk (in other words, although red meat does have an effect, the effect size is tiny).
The “some publications” nonsense would literally require overturning century-old radio physics. Some publications will always find everything to be carcinogenic; this is how statistics work.
In the real world, thermal radiation can’t ionise. (Cell phones may be carcinogenic due to their materials and the behaviours they induce.)
reply