Federal scientists released partial findings Friday from a $25 million animal study that tested the possibility of links between cancer and chronic exposure to the type of radiation emitted from cell phones and wireless devices. The findings, which chronicle an unprecedented number of rodents subjected to a lifetime of electromagnetic radiation, present some of the strongest evidence to date that such exposure is associated with the formation of rare cancers in at least two cell types in the brains and hearts of rats.
There are some major caveats, though. The results were only observed in male rats; there weren't any significant effects seen in female rats. Exposure in utero didn't seem to affect cancer risk. And in male rats, the incidence of those two cancers was quite low. But even a small increase in the incidence of those cancers could have a major public health impact given how many people in the world regularly use cell phones.
Related Stories
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: 1) by hopp on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:56AM
I think you'll find a rat study is an apples and oranges comparison when dealing in the realm of EM radiation and it's health effects.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:47AM
True (especially given rats are fairly prone to cancer), but these aren't made as definitive studies.
The relationship between various radiations and their effects is complex, and not all of them need be harmful.
Non-exposure to bright light has been linked to myopia.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjdkbcOx05A [youtube.com]
Low doses of gamma radiation has been linked to hormesis.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128222047.htm [sciencedaily.com]
And of course the possibility of developing super-human abilities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man [wikipedia.org]
The point is that the effects are unclear, and there are probably a host of effects, both good and bad, from any single stimuli. Wireless technologies are embedded in to the culture now, so I doubt there is any going back.
But that doesn't mean the effects shouldn't be continually evaluated and re-evaluated. No sense in walking through the abyss blind.
Hell, I get violently ill near MRI machines and the cause has only been recently described, instead of just being "in my head".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2040946/MRI-scans-CAN-make-dizzy-Magnetic-fields-disrupt-fluid-inner-ear.html [dailymail.co.uk]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:22AM
True (especially given rats are fairly prone to cancer), but these aren't made as definitive studies.
The general populace is not exactly knowledgeable about the intricacies of scientific studies. The problem is, these are gonna be reported and spread around Facebook&co as the most definitive studies in the history of mankind.
You just need to remember that one discredited, debunked and retracted study that connected vaccines and autism. That story still refuses to die, and a large percentage of people still believe there's a connection.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:52AM
But is that really a problem with the studies themselves or the poor scientific education of the public at large?
I mean I get confused at the implications of several studies, and I almost, kinda, sorta don't know what I'm doing either. You'd be surprised how many people with a solid scientific background misread statistical information too.
Most of these findings fit within the biases of the people anyway, so it's not like it's going to change much behavior except for people with a predisposition regardless.
And you gotta cut the people some slack. One peer group grew up with the mantra that fat and cholesterol were de facto causes of heart disease, only to be told now that probably wasn't the case, and the margarine they've been using was probably worse. This leads to a suspicion of science in general, in part because people are unaware a large portion of the scientific process is based upon falsifiability. and they don't mentally put in thus far when reading any data.
If anything, it's an argument for making statistics a part of the core curriculum (moreso than programing).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:35AM
But is that really a problem with the studies themselves or the poor scientific education of the public at large?
It's a combination of publish-or-perish environment and media sensationalism. To be published and get a lot of citation (so as not to be fired), scientists overstate their claims. I'm assuming most other scientists are aware of this and take it into consideration when evaluating other research. The media, on the other hand, takes those over the top claims, turns the dial to eleventy hundred and runs with it.
And you gotta cut the people some slack.
As long as they're not actively ignoring facts even when those facts stare them in the face (cf: creationists, anti-vaxxers etc.), I do. I don't blame the ignorant; after all, we're all ignorant in a lot of things. I blame the willful idiots, the media and the suits (university administration, government "science" agencies etc).
If anything, it's an argument for making statistics a part of the core curriculum (moreso than programing).
That'd be nice, but it would ruin the gambling industry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 29 2016, @12:40AM
denier!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:28AM
The great news is you're gonna have a stiff time right before you die.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Aiwendil on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:06AM
If you RTFA you'll notice:
* Brain tumours - same as control
* Cardiac tumors - increased in males (schwannoma, a benign kind)
* Lifespan - inceased in males
Soo, pick your poison - live longer XOR have a healthy heart
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:31AM
But was the increase in the number of cardiac tumors larger than to be expected for the increased life span?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:15AM
Does this mean that all those people claiming to be RF sensitive actually have a leg to stand on?
From the report (page 13):
I don't know what all the big words mean, but it sounds like there is nervous system involvement.
That would be consistent with a sub-set of the population being able to "feel" radio waves.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:33AM
Glial are more akin to collagen, but for nerve cells, i.e.- they operate like scaffolding.
Tests run on people who claim to be able to detect wi-fi signals have been negative. People have not been able to detect the presence at any better rates than chance.
That is not to say they aren't feeling something, but more than likely it isn't related to wi-fi. No sensory cells are affected anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:34AM
That would be consistent with a sub-set of the population being able to "feel" radio waves.
Sure, the subset with magnetic implants in their fingers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:24PM
When I first saw a headline about this, I wondered if it was like the cyclamate study that said if you drink 10 gallons of kool-aid a day for 120 years, you would likely develop cancer.
Another page I saw said the "scientists" didn't want to "confuse" the results with the effects of -heating-, so they established what that power level was and backed off just a dab.
"Science". Heh.
As an AC down in the (meta)thread notes, there are over a billion human subjects using cellphones in that decade-long-and-more experiment.
No statistical significance noted yet.
If there was a correlation found between increased cancers (particularly on the side of the head where the thing was held i.e. where the field strength is the greatest), that would have been splattered all over the news.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:23AM
I read the prelim paper and noticed something odd (or at least odd to me). They were measuring these changes at incredibly high power, up to 6 watts/kg. That strikes me as an impressively large amount of energy, even at the lowest exposure they tested at 1.5W/kg. I mean for exposure levels like that for us humans (average say of 60KG), we're talking 90 watts of radiated power. Now I know my cellphone can't do that and I would be surprised if people are handing around cellphone towers with that much power.
I'm hoping my lack of familiarity with the testing methodology is to blame and that the exposure levels they tested were actually pretty reasonable. I don't consider 1.5W/kg reasonable, but again I may just be misinterpreting the data.
Google says a cellphone could emit up to 2 watts in bursts if needed (but usually is in the milliwatt range in terms of radiated power in the microwave band) while a cell tower may be up to 500W (FCC regulations) but is more likely to be much lower than that (100 Watts or less is typical).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:32AM
I don't think the risk is that high, but I do seem to get headaches when I get long calls on my mobile phones than with normal phones. I'm not that concerned since I don't make long calls that often. I might get my head bumped (not hard) almost as often and definitely expose my brain to alcohol a lot more. So the main damage to my brain is probably not going to be from phones.
But those who say it's not ionizing radiation and imply that it thus can't do any damage, are either idiots or being disingenuous. Microwave ovens don't produce significant amounts of ionizing radiation and they can certainly alter or damage flesh. I don't know how many milliwatts it takes to change a few brain cells and whether there can be standing waves or similar.
[1] The problem is too many scientists nowadays don't do research and science to try to find out the truth but do it to get funding or because they need something to publish ;).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @11:22AM
The problem is too many scientists nowadays don't do research and science to try to find out the truth but do it to get funding or because they need something to publish ;).
Oh, I'm quite sure most scientists start out trying to find the truth, but they either 1) get really good at making up bogus commercial applications or over-the-top publishable claims, 2) start doing commercially viable research, or 3) get fired and are not scientists any more. It's not a problem with scientists, it's a problem with society.
Anecdotal example. I'm a doctoral student, so people often ask me what my research is (it's simulations of space plasma, btw). Most scientists and other students (i.e. academia) then start discussing it or something. Everyone else, without exception, first asks "where will that be useful?" Every fucking goddamn person, from businessmen and random schmucks to my parents. Why the fuck does it matter? It's cool, it's interesting - ain't that enough of a reason to do it? I have some enthusiastic template answer about how it's gonna help spaceships and satellites or something, but it's mostly bull to be honest. Luckily, those who ask me that don't have enough scientific background to see that it's bull. As you can see, I'm hoping to master the number 1 from the above list.
Honestly, those who want every piece of research to have immediately obvious applications should go back to the caves and leave us to advance in piece. I'm sure fire didn't seem all that useful at first, either.
(Score: 1) by DonkeyChan on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:24AM
Is incapable of breaking the bonds to cause cancer, on a quantum level.
But on a more abstract note, I'm 100% done with sites using fear to get money.
I'm tired of fear being used as a social control, full stop.
These people prey on the ignorance of others, and the fear wrought from it, exactly like the authority structures did in the dark ages.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by maxwell demon on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:42AM
What if the effect is not caused by breaking bonds, but by affecting the repair mechanism? Genes are frequently damaged due to various causes; cancer only develops if the damage cannot be repaired.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:52AM
yes, that's true. I think the non-crazy researchers are now wondering whether consisted exposer to RF can generate problems in other ways (heating for instance). In any case, while my gut instinct is to simply ignore anyone saying "cancer" and "cellphone" in the same sentence, you have to realize that animals are very complicated things, and we don't understand how everything works. we really don't know whether or not our bodies can be affected by sustained coherent RF, even if a lot of us are doubtful of it.
as an aside: personally, I think the amount of people killed because they're on the phone while driving or crossing the street is much bigger than the number of people who get cancer from phones. in this sense, cellphones are a horrible hazard for individual lives (although, at least for the dead pedestrians, we could cynically call them a genepool clearing device).
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday May 28 2016, @06:53AM
Ionizing radiation is not the only thing that causes cancer:
- Child Abuse and Neglect: Consequences [cdc.gov]
- Asbestosis [wikipedia.org]
- About Cancer > Causes and Prevention > Risk Factors > Alcohol [cancer.gov]
(Score: 1) by redneckmother on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:31AM
I drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. I have poor health. So far, I'm okay.
Short of a cold water immersion, none of us are more than eight minutes away from death (if you choke, you die).
I'm gonna be comfortable and happy until something kills me. None of us are getting away alive.
Doc said, "You need to stop drinking and smoking." I said, "Figure the bill, Doc - we're done."
There's no point in trying to live forever. Be happy, be good to others, and quit worrying.
Mas cerveza por favor.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:36AM
These people prey on the ignorance of others, and the fear wrought from it, exactly like the authority structures did in the dark ages.
The difference being, the authority structures in the dark ages were right!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:38AM
Not all cancer and tissue damage is due to ionizing radiation. So just because it isn't ionizing radiation doesn't mean it's safe. There's not much proof it's dangerous yet either but don't prey on the ignorance of others and tell them it's AOK because it's non-ionizing radiation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fnj on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:04PM
Duh. Yeah, it warms it up. Kind of like setting a stick on fire and standing near it. Your point?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:19PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:48PM
You really don't have a grasp on heat transfer and the circulatory system and what it does, do you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @02:17PM
The evidence better supports aneuploidy causing cancer than point mutations, so I don't see why ionizing radiation would be neccesary. Essentially, your premise is oft repeated, but that doesn't make it true.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday May 28 2016, @04:49PM
Why do you assume the mechanism is breaking bonds? Radiation is well known for resonating with certain bonds which depending on lot different things, and can either facilitate or hinder the forming of bonds (as opposed to the breaking of bonds).
And, FWIW, even though the radiation may not, by itself, be sufficient to break bonds, it could easily be sufficient to lower the threshhold for something else breaking the bond.
This whole controversy can ONLY be settled by longitudinal studies with controls, and just try to set that up. It's a plausible argument, because there are many potential pathways in which it could happen. But it's also quite plausible that it's a false alarm. And the whole thing is too complex to construct a trustworthy model about. So experiments are the ONLY approach. But rats aren't people, and high levels of microwave radiation aren't at all equivalent to low levels.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:42AM
"But even a small increase in the incidence of those cancers could have a major public health impact given how many people in the world regularly use cell phones."
The problem is evaluating risk. Is the number of additional deaths relevant? Or is it in the range of "death by lightning", where we can ignore it.
Even for higher risks, there's a tradeoff to be made. We could save hundreds of thousands of lives worldwide every year, maybe millions, by returning to the agrarian society of yesteryear. Just imagine: no more traffic deaths, because no more cars. Of course, billions would die from other causes, including starvation. Industrialization represented a massive increase in efficiency, productivity, standard of living, etc.
In the present case, our society has evolved into the "information age". Returning to the industrial age of yesteryear would carry a heavy price, because information technologies have also vastly improved efficiency, productivity, standard of living, etc.
Unfortunately, our politicians cannot be trusted to make intelligent decisions based on things like "cancer risk of cellphones". They will jump whichever way the paid lobbiests ask them to. Not even out of ill intent, but simply because these are complex mathematical and technological issues; areas in which your average politician has zero education or training.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @05:50PM
You don't need rats. We have a billion of these devices in use every day by a billion people. Any increase in cancers, even a very small increase, would show as a measurable rise in these cancers with a pool of a billion people. This isn't seen.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Saturday May 28 2016, @09:03AM
Best of all - look at the first actual table of results in the PDF linked to from the article, and draw the following conclusions:
- With GSM modulation, 6 W/kg is *better* for you than 1.5 W/kg!
- Humans can tell the difference between CDMA modulation and GSM modulation at 3 W/kg
If the scientists aren't prepared to support those two assertions, then they shouldn't be spouting their own assertions which have the same level of support, given the numbers.
Let's just call this another waste of $25M and try and get on with our lives.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday May 28 2016, @07:00PM
It is distressing that the results border on statistical insignificance. From TFA:
In another post [soylentnews.org] Maxwell demon pointed out:
The male rats living longer may be just co-incidence as well.
I am not sure calling this study a waste of $25M is the right answer. If there is something there, we may want to try to reproduce the results. It will be interesting it see if the parallel study on mice (yet to be published) has similar results.
(Score: 2) by quintessence on Saturday May 28 2016, @10:48AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KluEuzFUVP0 [youtube.com]
Yeah, yeah, yeah... sciencey news program, but they tend to be better than average. The recommendations seem common sense... limit exposure until better data is available.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 28 2016, @12:51PM
Limiting exposure has a number of health benefits, including: training others not to expect an immediate reply to text messages, less Facebook drama, no more worries about weekend emails from work needing immediate attention, learning how to read a map instead of blindly turning wherever the cell phone says to turn, etc.
(Score: 1) by Viadd on Sunday May 29 2016, @07:03PM
This is one of many results that will come out fo the study. This is the first published, the most publicized, and therefore the one most likely to be spurious.
Most of the statistical power P-value for this study is due to the fact that the control group had an abnormally low cancer rate.
The control group had Zero heart and brain tumors in 180 rats, whereas their historical rate for other control groups would predict 3.6 in that population. This may be because the the control group died off at a higher rate than the treatment group (only 28% of the controls survived to the end of the study, whereas historical rates are 47%) so maybe some who would have gotten cancer died early.
If your controls are abnormally lucky (P 0.027 for 0 when 3.6 expected) normal rates for the treatment group suddenly look bad. (Lucky in this case may mean dying before you get cancer.)
And there is no significant dose response: the 1.5 W/kg group got about the same rate as the 6 W/kg rate.
For comparison: 6 W/kg of absorbed radio energy is about 60 kcal/day for a 500 gram rat, which coincidentally is about how much a rat that size normally eats. So basically you are doubling the energy input into an animal and having little if any effect.