SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the wrap-it-in-aluminum-foil-AND-tin-foil-before-using dept.
Study of Cellphone Risks Finds 'Some Evidence' of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats
For decades, health experts have struggled to determine whether or not cellphones can cause cancer. On Thursday, a federal agency released the final results of what experts call the world's largest and most costly experiment to look into the question. The study originated in the Clinton administration, cost $30 million and involved some 3,000 rodents.
The experiment, by the National Toxicology Program, found positive but relatively modest evidence that radio waves from some types of cellphones could raise the risk that male rats develop brain cancer. "We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real," John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.
But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot "be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience." Moreover, the rat study examined the effects of a radio frequency associated with an early generation of cellphone technology, one that fell out of routine use years ago. Any concerns arising from the study thus would seem to apply mainly to early adopters who used those bygone devices, not to users of current models.
[...] The rats were exposed to radiation at a frequency of 900 megahertz — typical of the second generation of cellphones that prevailed in the 1990s, when the study was first conceived. Current cellphones represent a fourth generation, known as 4G, and 5G phones are expected to debut around 2020. They employ much higher frequencies, and these radio waves are far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans and rats, scientists say.
Previously: Major Cell Phone Radiation Study Reignites Cancer Questions
First Clear Evidence Cell Phone Radiation Can Cause Cancer In Rats
Related: Dim-Bulb Politician Wants Warning on Cell Phones
California Issues Warning Over Cellphones; Study Links Non-Ionizing Radiation to Miscarriage
Mill Valley, California Blocks 5G Over Health Concerns
(Score: 3, Informative) by requerdanos on Saturday November 03 2018, @03:03PM (9 children)
This study shows that your cancer risk is increased if you:
1. Are a rat
2. Absorb exponentially more of the radiation that any person has or would
Don't get me wrong; I see how semi-literate people with their own agenda can *claim* the results are "unfavorable to the cell phone industry", but looking at the actual results, even discounting condition #1, the result is very, very favorable to the cell phone industry: "People exposed to your products do not have more chance to get cancer. They would have to get much, much higher exposure for it to be an issue."
You, sir, very skillfully live up to your username, and I salute you.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday November 03 2018, @03:41PM (6 children)
Da fuq? Be more like https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=28400&cid=757283 [soylentnews.org] because that was useful.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @04:20PM (5 children)
What did you find useful about it? Radiation isnt required to be ionizing in order to affect dna replication and repair. Its a total strawman.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday November 03 2018, @04:25PM (4 children)
Go on please. I've not heard that non-ionizing RF is a hazard.
What I found useful is that they are trying to contribute knowledge to the discussion instead of just rehash what is obvious as if the problem was other people have the intellect of a 4 year old.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @04:41PM (3 children)
A microwave works via non-ionizing radiation, why wouldnt it have an effect? All that matters is the hydrogen bonds between dna molecules or the replication/repair machinery and dna, or really anything at all can be affected by the radiation. And its obvious this effect is not going to be huge or it would have been noticed long ago so likely the disruption needs to happen at just the wrong time during the cell cycle or whatever.
(Score: 2) by Knowledge Troll on Saturday November 03 2018, @04:53PM (2 children)
Mostly because RF is made up of a voltage component and a magnetic component and neither of those are known to cause cancer in people in any way. It seems the human body can tolerate magnetic fields to the extent that it rips the metal in you out of you and we tolerate voltage fields just fine as well. We don't tolerate being electrocuted very much that's for sure.
Something changes with this combination or power levels because a microwave introduces RF at levels nature never expected on the surface of the earth.
I agree - we have a proximity and transmitter duty cycle that is vastly different with the use case of a cell phone than any other radio system I can think of. We've never seen anything like this before so I think it's up in the air.
Possibly - I see it as a probability with more cell/RF interaction events leading to high possibility. The proximity and transmitter duty cycle contribute to this.
Well I believe what the microwave does is grab molecules in the material it is interacting with (your lunch) and wiggles them around really fast. They rub against each other and make heat. I bet the wiggling follows the wave itself though that pattern inside that closed box is going to be crazy complicated or perfectly uniform with standing waves and holes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 03 2018, @05:25PM
Microwaves are "tuned" to water molecules, other frequencies will wriggle other molecules.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:57PM
I would not be at all surprised if the patch antennae used in mobile phones are producing standing waves, which cause problems when the phone is held in a single position for a time, be it against your head or in your trouser pocket. The field they produce is asymmetric, and 50% is directed inward rather than outward.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Saturday November 03 2018, @10:12PM (1 child)
The reason why you expose the rats to higher levels than humans would normally experience is because you want to observe a statistically significant effect in a reasonable timeframe with a limited number of rats. This includes both cost and ethical considerations as well as time, which is fundamentally limited by the lifetime of the animal. Animal research (in the UK at least) require minimising the animal numbers by law as part of the animal work licensing. Radiation effects are typically linear, so we should be able to extrapolate from these results.
Drawing the conclusion that you would have to have much higher exposure for it to be an issue is not appropriate. You also need to consider the exposure duration, which is orders of magnitude longer for humans.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Sunday November 04 2018, @01:17PM
The conclusion is absolutely appropriate. Under their methodology, the rats were exposed to continuous high levels of whole-body radiation for years [nih.gov] during the study.
Now, while it's technically true that humans have a period of tens of years to potentially be exposed to radiation due to their increased lifespan, even considering this and extrapolating linearly, the rats still got much higher exposure.
The rats were exposed to 1.5, 3, or 6 watts of continuous full body exposure, while cell phones' average emissions are localized and are in the milliwatt range.
The math doesn't work to claim that milliwatts of intermittent, localized radiation over tens of years is comparable to 6 watts continuously for years.
"1.5, 3, or 6 continuous whole-body watts for years" works out to be much higher levels of radiation than humans get from cellular telephones.
Now, we can conclude that if unusually high levels of radiation increase cancer risk significantly, that it's possible that much lower levels might increase it insignificantly. But it's not linear from 0 to infinity; according to the Paracelsus Principle there is a threshold below which a risk can't be identified, and this study didn't find that threshold, but rather measured things that were above it.
Can much lower levels of 900MHz radiation cause cancer? No one knows conclusively, but it looks improbable, and it's not relevant to cell phones now, because they largely no longer use those frequencies.