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, Insightful) by rleigh on Saturday November 03 2018, @09:25PM (1 child)
Well, for starters, consider this. DNA is a double-stranded helix, where the paired bases on each helix interact weakly via hydrogen bonds. Two for A-T, three for G-C pairings. It doesn't take much energy to disrupt that pairing and "melt" the strands. Now, the molecules are huge, and the cumulative strength from all the pairs in total results in a very stable structure. However, it's easy to disrupt a small bit and create a single-stranded "bubble". This exposes the bases in that area to the cellular machinery for transcription. That site might be a promoter, enhancer, repressor, or other regulatory sequence and trigger some action such as transcription of a particular gene, or repression of another. Or it might displace some regulatory RNA sequence. Cell signalling is very complex, but this could ultimately affect some key signalling pathway, and potentially promote unregulated division. Note that terahertz radiation has been shown to "unzip" DNA. Microwave radiation can cause localised heating which can then trigger melting.
Protein structures are also subject to delicate thermodynamic equilibria, where temperature increases could potentially change the structure stability, leading to conformational changes and disruption or stabilisation of protein-protein or protein-ligand interactions. Suppose that molecule is a tumour suppressor, and you affect its function.
Note that none of this relies on ionising radiation breaking chemical bonds. It's simply a local shift in the thermodynamic equilibrium. The chances of a single event being disruptive are low. It's all ultimately down to probability, where increased exposure makes it more probable an undesirable event will occur.
(I do have a PhD in biology.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 04 2018, @04:11PM
Thanks. Reading comments above had me frustrated and ready to post this, but I would've been much less concise than you. Appreciate your accuracy and even-headedness.
Whenever someone says "oh it's not ionizing so it's safe" it boggles my mind. There are lots of molecules that are photosensitive, including in humans, and all kinds of chemical and kinetic events can lead to different conditions of DNA,RNA,methylation,etc.