from the Whats-the-frequency-Kenneth? dept.
El Reg reports
University of Manchester researchers reckon they've eliminated one of the mechanisms that might have linked mobile phones to cancer. The research is also bad news for those who think power lines are cancer-carriers.
Dr Alex Jones in the University's School of Chemistry led a team examining whether weak magnetic fields affected flavoproteins. Since this protein class handles DNA repair, among other things, it was a favourite candidate for those who believed that the weak magnetic fields associated with phones and power lines are dangerous to health.
The research, to appear in the Royal Society journal Interface, was unable to observe any reaction involving flavoproteins that would occur in the human body.
[...]one of the roles of flavoproteins is to transfer electrons from one place to another. These are referred to as electron transfer flavoproteins, and their activities assist in processes like oxidation.
The electron transfer process involves the creation of chemicals called radical pairs and these had been put forward as a mechanism by which weak magnetic fields might interact with cells--but [...] the research "suggests the correct conditions for biochemical effects of WMFs are likely to be rare in the human body".
(Score: 4, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday December 15 2014, @09:10PM
This is phenomenal chauvinism at its most flagrant. Confront them with the truth: that these are ethereal and astral disruptions?
You will quickly witness just how biased these "boffins" are!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by bob_super on Monday December 15 2014, @09:13PM
> they've eliminated one of the mechanisms that might have linked mobile phones to cancer.
BUT
>was unable to observe any reaction involving flavoproteins that would occur in the human body.
>the research "suggests the correct conditions for biochemical effects of WMFs are likely to be rare in the human body".
Yet another case of the researchers being a lot more careful at wording than the reporters...
Considering that the advent of affordable cell phones hasn't coincided with a massive widespread cancer increase, they're looking for a small effect. "likely to be rare" is pretty much statistically where you should be looking.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Tuesday December 16 2014, @10:31AM
Yeah, I opened the comments just to post what you posted.
Dear gewg_, please refrain from writing shitty assonant titles in the future.
Thank you.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:23PM
There are never many submissions waiting, post some.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @01:47PM
Exactly. I'm sending a Jump to conclusions matt to the reporters...
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Monday December 15 2014, @09:26PM
Brit Boffins Bung "Magnetic Fields and Cancer" Link Hypothesis
bung noun [C] (CLOSING DEVICE)
› (usually US stopper) a round piece of rubber, wood, etc. that is used to close the hole in a container
bung noun [C] (MONEY)
› a payment made to someone to persuade them to do something, usually something dishonest: Of course both the politicians denied taking bungs.
bung
verb [T + adv/prep] uk /bʌŋ/ mainly UK informal us
› to put something somewhere in a careless way: "Where shall I put my coat?" "Oh, bung it anywhere."
-
So... yeah, it's none of those.
After that, could've done without the verb/noun "link," as well.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Funny) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday December 15 2014, @09:47PM
Please! Not the same week that we learn of Dick Cheney's "CIA re-hydrating" techniques!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Monday December 15 2014, @09:56PM
Thanks for the translation from English! Now if you could just explain what "bullocks" are, please?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday December 15 2014, @10:43PM
It's got something to do with objects traveling at high speeds, I believe.
(Score: 1) by archshade on Monday December 15 2014, @10:57PM
Thanks for the translation from English! Now if you could just explain what "bullocks" are, please?
Bullock noun:
...
Or did you mean?
Bollocks (mild expletive, British slang):
- "The PMs statement was utter bollocks"
- "The chips where bollocks, just the smell made me want to throw up."
See also bollocking (to give or receive an aggressive verbal chastising), bollocked (to be aggressively verbally chastised, past tense)
An incredibly versatile word, that is acceptable in most company, it can often be used as a drop in replacement for fuck.
(Score: 1) by archshade on Monday December 15 2014, @11:01PM
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday December 16 2014, @08:33AM
it can often be used as a drop in replacement for fuck.
"Bollocks you" nope... "Bollocks off" nope... "For bollocks's sake" nope... "Fancy a bollocks?" nope...
"The chips where bollocks, just the smell made me want to throw up."
You rarely (if ever) hear it used to describe the state of a physical item that way. It'd be "shit."
You also forgot the other use it has, which is to shore up an American TV actor's dodgy English accent.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 15 2014, @11:12PM
stopper [...] used to close the hole in a container
bung (verb) - to seal a keg using a big-ass hammer.
wooden beer bung mallet [ancientpoint.com]
bunghole mallet [offermanwoodshop.com]
bung maul [googleusercontent.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday December 16 2014, @08:20AM
If anything, sealing up a hole in something is usually a metaphor for supporting that thing.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:26PM
Your definition differs from the OED and Webster's. Perhaps you might start reading some less, shall we say, drunken "news" sites?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:23AM
A note to the editors: linking to the Register I can live with, but for the love of "Bob", please refrain from copying their headlines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:32AM
The original said "debunked".
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Monday December 15 2014, @11:04PM
It's been a while since I looked at the research on this issue. However, the consensus appears to be that certain types of electromagnetic fields are associate with increased cancer risk in children (leukemia). Associations in adults are less consistent ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23337237/ [nih.gov] ).
As far as geographical associations go, I wouldn't be surprised if the effect was caused by something like:
Closer to power lines = closer to sites of old substations = closer to PCB contamination in soil.
Cancer effects in a population are really tough to track as so many things are carcinogenic, humans aren't very good at reporting exposures and the pesky bastards keep moving around. Let's not even raise the issue of different disease definitions and detection methods.
The book is not closed on this one, but I would not be surprised in the least if high exposure increases total risk by 2 or 3%.
Then again if you're going to worry about that you should totally freak out at the increased morbidity and mortality from motor vehicle fumes (especially diesel).
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday December 16 2014, @03:33PM
closer to PCB contamination in soil.
We have a winner! My dad was an electrical lineman, and that damned transformer oil (PCBs) caused everyone he worked with to die of liver cancer before they were 70. Dad died in May from that disease; he was a few weeks shy of his 84th birthday (good genes).
Nobody knew it was dangerous; they oiled their tools with the stuff!
Thankfully, they've transitioned away from PCBs and are now using vegetable-based oils in transformers.
I'd like to know where the idiotic "cell phones linked to cancer" came from? where are all the new brain and genital cancers one would expect?
Leave it to that fine publication, The Register.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @04:57PM
I don't really see how magnetic fields of this strength would cause cancer on the molecular level. It would not be expected to induce mutations or specifically deactivate tumor suppressors.
On the cellular level, it also would not be expected to cause an increase in inflammation or cause any immunosuppression.
(Score: 1) by quixote on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:28PM
Very good points by zeigerpuppy. Also, flavoproteins are one class of components out of hundreds, thousands, that affect energy use and DNA transcription in cells. It's nice to know flavoproteins aren't affected by weak magnetic fields. There are all the other factors plus the disquieting epidemiological data. The book is not closed, at least not by the flavoprotein research.
(Score: 2) by TK on Tuesday December 16 2014, @08:13PM
I would hesitate to call it a consensus. I've seen studies going both ways, and reviews of the numerous studies that go both ways.
I spent a little bit of time brushing up on my knowledge of the subject, and my results can best be summed up by two studies.
Childhood leukemia and residential exposure to weak extremely low frequency magnetic fields. Feychting, et al; 1995 [nih.gov]
I linked to page three because it has the results table. 1.5 - 3.0x risk.
Is epidemiology implicating extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields in childhood leukemia? Lagiou, et al; 2002 [nih.gov]
Best summarized by "We conclude that the empirical evidence in support of an association between ELF-EMF and childhood leukemia is weak."
I also found a study [nih.gov] from Iran that shows a risk greater than 8x, but that could be due to environmental factors ala mcgrew's post, and a small sample size (60 children with leukemia, 59 controls).
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:58AM
Have amateur radio operators experienced significant cancer risk?
Every amateur radio operator I have ever known - especially the earlier ones - had subjected themselves to more RF in a day than many of us would experience in a lifetime.
Personally, I have known my share of Amateur radio operators; I have not noted anything unsusual.
I would think skiing, football, or hockey would be a lot more dangerous. Even driving to work.
Incidentally, there are a lot of people out there who believe magnetic fields cure all sorts of maladies. I have seen no confirmation of that either.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 16 2014, @09:00AM
Around the turn of the last century (1900) people used to wear magnetic girdles or other "support garments" for that extra vim and vigor. I once saw a replica Sears & Roebuck's Catalog of circa 1902 that had pages of different models. People quit using them for the same reason we have cell phones, I guess: they don't make any difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 16 2014, @06:18PM
Radio waves emitted by the cell phone antenna are not analogous to power lines EMI in neither frequency or magnitude. Same goes for comparing ham operator safety to that of the cell phone user - apples to oranges. High frequency magnetic field is the crux of the problem.
I don't think people are worried about weak magnetic fields when it comes to cell phones and their safety.
(Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:10PM
Alex Jones? Is this some sort of conspiracy? I would have expected a scientist with that name to connect it to 9/11 and chemtrails.
Also, flavoproteins sound delicious.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Tuesday December 16 2014, @07:13PM
Let us suppose, just for a moment, that cell phone radiation *is* harmful. The people against it also don't want cell phone towers (or the much smaller antennas common in urban areas) anywhere near themselves. This is typical NIMBY, and even more counterproductive than usual. They should plaster the cities full of cell phone towers, because nearby towers mean that the phone you're holding to your head needs to radiate a lot less power. Widely spaced towers, and your cell phone has to pump out the RF in order to reach the distant towers.
In any case, it's pretty irrelevant: cell phones have been around long enough that any causative effects would have become obvious by now. Cancer rates increased in the 1970s and 1980s due to better diagnosis, but have been declining since 1992. [nih.gov]
There was a study here in Europe a while back, where they took the people who claim to get ill from RF, be it cell phone towers or wifi. The put several of these people into a shielded house with an RF emitter that turned on at random times. The people logged how they felt at any given time, in particular, they logged the symptoms they associated with RF (migraines, etc.). There was zero correlation.
There is a very correlation between childhood leukemia and power lines, however as another poster suggests, this is likely due to correlation rather than causation. People living near power lines are generally living in poorer areas of town - and are themselves on average poorer. There are so many possible correlative factors that determining genuine cause-and-effect is very difficult.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.