How Dangerous Is Cell Phone Radiation?

The few times I've come across people who believe this stuff, usually because I see they have one of those rf stickers over the ear piece, I ask them "Don't you think in our lawsuit happy society that rather than being sued in the largest, most expensive, class action lawsuit ever that cell phone makers would opt to slap a 5 cent 'screen' on the phones' ear piece by default, if there was any chance of any risk?"

I always find it so amusing that there are people that think "Here's a device that will give me cancer, but rather than avoid it I'll buy this $10 sticker between the gum and the magazines here at the checkout." (Because obviously the only way a signal can get out of the phone is through the holes on the earpiece.)

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
September 02, 2008 12:53pm

I found this timely since I just ordered a replacement battery for my cell phone and included with it was a free self-adhesive ceramic doo-hicky made in China that was intended to be stuck to your phone to protect the user from the electro-magnetic field generated by the phone. I promptly threw it away.

Chas, Mpls
September 02, 2008 12:55pm

"Dr. Davis' Ph.D. is in 'science studies', whatever that is, and she is neither a medical doctor nor does she have any specialization in physical sciences like radiation."

WIki page on Science Studies: "Science studies is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to situate scientific expertise in a broad social, historical, and philosophical context."

In other words, Science Studies is the study of science not from the practical angle, but from a social perspective. Read: postmodern deconstruction.

See also the Science Wars for an account of Science Studies butting heads with real scientists.

Peter D., Leawood, Kansas
September 02, 2008 5:09pm

You can say whatever you want, but I can assure you that I get dizzy when talking over 3 minutes on the cell phone (and not a normal phone with a wire), sometimes to such an extent that I have to lay down for a few minutes. After this happening to me several times I tried to avoid talking on the phone as much as possible, but you cannot avoid it 100%, so I just endure the totally real physical effects it has on my head. I do feel dizzy and its my real personal experience and its NOT my imagination. I also never thought of it much BEFORE I saw the effects it had on me. SO its real. Some people are more sensitive to the microwave energy than others. The thing is that most studies concentrate on the fact that microwave energy creates heat, so they measure the heat that is actually small. But do they count the nerve cell disorientation? Thats why I feel, that my brain cells become disoriented and dont function normally. Once I had to talk for more than 30 minuites and I felt so horrible I wanted to puke!.. This is not a joke, its real. Remember most studies are sponsored by the cell phone companies themselves.... I dont need any other "proof" because I can feel the effects directly on me.

Me, Greece
September 02, 2008 6:03pm

What's the chance that "tomorrow things will change, and we'll find that cell phones are harmful"? Can someone put a number on it, because then it would be easy to assign cost/risk values: cost of wearing a headset versus cost of having a brain tumor times the probability of having a brain tumor caused by the phone. How do you measure this number?

Max, Boston, MA
September 02, 2008 6:48pm

nice bit of anecdotal evidence there Mr Greece

Jon, Canberra
September 02, 2008 9:30pm

The link under "thrown out" is to a junkscience.com transcript of 20/20 which does start out saying that the original scare had been unwarranted. But the rest of that transcript goes on (in a very disjoint and confused fashion) to a conclusion that some models weren't compliant with requirements and that the FCC was interested. Couple of problems here. Milloy's blog site is well-named. I've followed google there a time or two in the past and decided that his ideology/agenda determines his conclusions. He's not a scientist, but a demagogue. And junkscience commenting on 20/20 is really just politics.

General rule applies, if it's really important, go back to primary sources.

Even with that said, Brian's probably right here. Energy in long wavelengths just isn't going to do anything to you. If you want to worry about cell phones, worry about wireless routers, too. That thought ought to give "Me, Greece" something to really get hysterical over.

Joe Strickland, Clarksburg, WV
September 02, 2008 10:28pm

Dear "Disturbed about the Spectrum in Greece",

So cell phones leave you all woozy? Is it the cell signal or the Bluetooth? What about every one else's cellphone calls? It's a safe bet your neighbors have cellphones. How about cordless phones? What effects does wireless internet have on you? I live in a small-medium size city and I detect 7 of my neighbors' wireless networks from in my house. How about broadcast TV/radio? How about satellite TV/radio? GPS? How about that pesky sun? He's emitting UV, IR, and visible light. That's some nerve!

Now, granted I'm being a bit silly, since you don't hold those things against your head. Still, if you sit and think about the STAGGERING amount of electronic signals that are whizzing through us at any given time it seems to me we're being exposed to at least a personal cell phone call's worth at all times.

Rest assured "Me, Greece" it IS, in fact, all in your head. The fact that you physically feel something does not exclude the possibility that you're making it up. I totally got this email once that said some guy's Doctor gave him a placebo, telling him it was a new cancer cure, and the guy got better, until he saw on TV that we were still looking for a cancer cure, at which point he died instantly. The human brain is a powerful thing. I'm sure that's a true story because it was forwarded to me by my mother, and she's always seemed pretty on the ball. I don't think she'd forward something like that without fully vetting her sources.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
September 02, 2008 10:50pm

Just realized that "Me, Greece" might be suggesting a third vector for damage that Mr. D did not cover in this podcast. The "nerve cell disorientation" described sounds suspiciously like ES. That was covered in a much earlier podcast, #72. The door was left open in that podcast for the claimants to come forth with evidence but it's been over a year and I've seen nothing. So perhaps that excludes the ES hypothesis from the ranks of "plausible alternatives" for purposes of this analysis.

Not sure how to answer Max's probably rhetorical question. The EM flux is high enough every place I've worked that the cell phone contribution isn't adding much to any risk. So the cost/benefit equation described has a benefit value of zero. Thus, no cost is justified.

Joe Strickland, Clarksburg, WV
September 03, 2008 12:02am

I was actually one of probably many people who submitted/requested the idea for this topic. I needed help trying to settle the debate on this with my parents and this should help wonderfully. Thanks a lot Brian for making life easier on me by giving your point of view and by citing all your sources so I can verify my own conclusions. As usual, I suspect I will agree with your views.

Eric Martin, Charleston, WV
September 03, 2008 2:53am

You can always find studies to support a conclusion:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=39853

"Ten or more years of mobile phone use has been found to increase the risk of a tumor called acoustic neuroma. The risk appears confined to the side of the head where the phone is usually held.
This worrisome information is in a report of a study from the Institute of Environmental Medicine at the famed Karolinska Institute in Stockholm. There is no evidence for an increased risk with less than 10 years of mobile phone use."

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/159/3/277

"Use of a cell phone for 10 years or more did not increase acoustic neuroma risk over that of short-term users. Furthermore, tumors did not occur more frequently on the side of the head on which the telephone was typically used, and the size of the tumor did not correlate with the pattern of cell phone use."

Also, check out the BioInitiative Report.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/report/index.htm

Max, Boston, MA
September 03, 2008 6:50am

Even if a study showed that say 20 years of cellphone use led to tumors, that wouldn't rule out the possibility that the real cause wasn't just the first generations of cellphones, which of course no one uses anymore, except for Zach Morris in "Saved By the Bell" reruns.

It also might say other things about that person's personality that they had to have, and could afford, a cell phone back when calls were like $1 a second.

I get uncomfortable talking on my Treo 650 for a while, but only because after 20 minutes or so the phone reaches 300 degrees, which is unpleasant to hold against your head.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
September 03, 2008 7:47am

Yup, the MedicineNet article has a section on the limitations of the study, including possible selection bias and the fact that it was limited to analog phones. However, it concludes, "Although the study has its limitations, the basic conclusion it comes to looks solid to us. It casts light not only on the danger of using an analog cell phone but also on the genesis of acoustic neuromas... In this disorder, a heritable mutation results in loss of function of a gene on chromosome 22... We would think that what is happening is that RF exposure from analog cell phones is mutating this same gene..."

The point is, if RF exposure can mutate genes, then cell damage is plausible.

Max, Boston, MA
September 03, 2008 9:31am

RF, EM, ES whatever you want to call it, still fits under the category of a force.
Use some logic guys, all forces, no matter how insignificant, will have some affect on matter and how it is organised, including living matter.
Whether these forces are enough to be measured/perceived by scientific means leaves much room for debate.
But the fact remains, there must be some level of effect on living tissue in the body. Drop a coin in the ocean - does it not rise? Of course it does, however insignificant the amount.
But in living tissus, a change in homeostatis requires the body to exert some form of corrective action.
So the question remains is not whether cell phone 'radiation' or use of cell phones affects our bodies - becuase my answer is that it most certainly does.
Why some people perceive the effects more than others, and why the body MAY express itself in different ways in response to these forces e.g. tumours, sensations of heat, pain etc., is yet to be explained by current knowledge.
I do not discount all the empirical studies conducted. However, using logic, i just cant beleive that cells phones, normal phones, TV's, microwaves, or any electrical device for that matter - have no adverse affect on our bodies.
So if people are happy to believe that cell phones produce too little a force to create any perceivable change in physiological structure - so be it.
I'm sure all the people who engineered asbestos thought that was safe as well at the time.

Anthony Despoja, Australia
September 03, 2008 11:51pm

If it's true that mobile phones are The Cause of Cancer, then Nokia are out of business, about five years ago.

Jon, Canberra
September 04, 2008 12:36am

Anthony Despoja, the force is strong in you.
Do you have a famous ex-senator relation?

What makes you think that any subtle "force" is going to make a change in homeostasis? How about the trillions of neutrinos that zap through your head every day? Does the pressure of daylight knock you over? Does the galaxie's central super massive black hole make you list to port in the bath?
It's a question of scale.

Do you think that the heat energy that a shower rose directs directly onto my cranium every day might cause similar cancer, and if not, why not?

"Why some people perceive the effects more than others, and why the body MAY express itself in different ways in response to these forces e.g. tumours, sensations of heat, pain etc., is yet to be explained by current knowledge."

Please, expand. I don't quite get what it is you are saying here.

"So if people are happy to believe that cell phones produce too little a force to create any perceivable change in physiological structure - so be it."

I am happy to "believe" this (meaning accept as the best explanation, based on the best available evidence) The sentence you ended with is what is known as a Strawman, I believe.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
September 04, 2008 3:59am

Jon, if it's true that cigarettes are The Cause of Cancer, then Phillip Morris are out of business, about fifty years ago.

Max, Boston, MA
September 04, 2008 3:56pm

Anthony, it's a pretty big leap to go from "have an effect" to "have an adverse or even noticeable effect." Going back to your coin example: dropping a coin in the ocean certainly will displace some water, but do you have a hard time believing it will have no adverse effect on the shores of the world? Do you imagine that somewhere, somehow, this action will cause an island to disappear beneath the waves?

Peter, Toronto, Ontario
September 04, 2008 8:45pm

Re: Products that 'lower' the effect.

My understanding of cell phone systems is that the phone negotiates its output power with the base station based on the recieved power from the base station and what the base station receives from the handset.

So if you strap on something that claims to absorb extra RF energy, wont this just make the phone transmit back to the base station at a *higher* power? And that's right near your head.

So assumming there something harmful about cell phone radiation - I'm not saying there is, but let's assume - then those 'protection' devices are actually making things *worse* for the user on average.

David Cohen, London, UK
September 05, 2008 2:29am

David,

The idea is for the protection device to absorb just the energy that would otherwise be absorbed by your head. It doesn't reach the base station in either case.

Max, Boston, MA
September 05, 2008 6:07am

I wonder if the stick-on protection patches Chas described are the same product that was sold to increase the transmission strength when cell phones were A Relatively New Thing.

Pieter B, Los Angeles
September 05, 2008 12:48pm

Pieter,

I remember products that were sold to increase reception, not transmission, by essentially making a bigger antenna. That doesn't affect the power of the signal being put out.

Max, Boston, MA
September 05, 2008 7:22pm

Thank you Brian for another excelent blog, but I'm afraid you dropped the ball at the end.

While the whole of your article concerned it self with the plausibilty of effects and adverse effects of cell phone use on the humand body, you added a secondry issue at the last line.

"I'm...damn glad there's a tower in my neighborhood."

I personaly do not know what's the excepted scientific view on cell phone towers danger, but you haven't discussed that at all. I don't know what to call this kind of logical falasy(adding a secondary conculsion not explained by the arguments).
I'm sure this wasn't out of favor towards your "evil corporate benefactors", but still a noticable lapse.

Please address this at your convenience.

Shahar S. Lubin, Ko-Si-Chang, Thailand
September 06, 2008 5:03am

Sorry Brian but I think you went pretty close to an ad-hominem attack on Debra Davis on this one. Whatever about the evidence to back up her claims (and I agree, there isn't any to date) she DOES actually have some pretty impressive qualifications that make her a suitable person to speak on this issue. She is an internationally renowned epidemiologist who works as director of environmental oncology at the University of Pittsburg cancer institute (she's known for her work on the environmental causes of breast cancer). From 1994-1999 she was President Clinton's appointee to the chemical safety and hazard investigation board and was the senior advisor to the assistant secretary for health in the department of health and human services. She's also a visiting professor in the department of environmental and occupational medicine at Mount Sinai medical center in New York.
True, she may not treat cancer patients or even be a medical doctor but she is a cancer epidemiologist and as such she IS a suitable person to talk on this matter.

MartinC, Stockholm
September 06, 2008 1:36pm

MD's treat patients. PhD's conduct studies. Epidemiologists, who actually study causal relationships between exposures and diseases, typically hold a PhD, not MD.

Have you considered that Davis knows about the Danish study but doesn't consider 13 years to be long-term.

By the way, if you go to Brian's link to the Danish study:
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/3/203

Right below the report, there's a link to the Swedish systematic review of studies:
"Long-term use of cellular phones and brain tumours: increased risk associated with use for >=10 years"

http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/64/9/626
"Conclusions: Results from present studies on use of mobile phones for 10 years give a consistent pattern of increased risk for acoustic neuroma and glioma. The risk is highest for ipsilateral [same side] exposure."

Max, Boston, MA
September 06, 2008 10:39pm

It isn't just Davis. The director of the UPMC cancer center, Ronald Heberman, made the news:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08205/898803-114.stm

"Recently I have become aware of the growing body of literature linking long-term cell phone use to possible adverse health effects including cancer," Dr. Ronald Herberman said in the memorandum. "Although the evidence is still controversial, I am convinced that there are sufficient data to warrant issuing an advisory to share some precautionary advice on cell phone use."

I've met the guy and talked technology with him and...not to pick on someone about his age, but...he's not particularly tech savvy and not quite up on things like cell phones, computers, the wheel...

Tom, Philly
September 08, 2008 12:31pm

Marius - yes our bodies are bombarded by an infinite number of particles/matter from outer space. I would argue that our bodies have developed a physiological capability to deal with this over the years (if you are a Darwinist of course). Eg. we utilise the sun's ray to get vitamin D. We cant see the cellular reactions occuring although we do feel the warmth on our skin (note some people claim ears burning when on cell phones..??? Even then, too much exposure can result in damage e.g. sunburn. The question is - do you think our bodies can now deal with the radiation/frequencies imposed by cell phones? Perhaps, this would depend on range of factors (e.g. intensity, frequency of exposure), but ultimately i would argue that this is a new, additional force our body has to deal with and that perhaps has not yet developed the means to deal with on a continual basis. Hence, some adverse effects occur.
Peter - yes i agree. But the purpose of the example was to demonstrate that the body must engage some physiological response. Whether this response is sufficient to ensure no adverse reactions occur, I argue would depend on frequency and intensity of exposure to cell phone radiation. Yes, some would say this then all comes down to integrity of our bodies e.g. general health, diet, lifestyle etc. But if this is something our body is not normally used to, then it would not matter how 'healthy' we were. So i would say if we can lessen the risk of exposure, then that's the way to go.

Anthony Despoja, Australia
September 08, 2008 3:38pm

I'm curious about Davis's conclusions regarding children. Why would "developing brains" be more sensitive to cellphone signals? Is there a known mechanism? Does her study include data that addresses this, or is it just anecdotal? And just how was the affect of cellphones singled out from all the myriad other things that can influence tumors? Do we have a rat study available?

Mark, Huntsville, AL
September 10, 2008 9:13am

Again, my ears, and the surrounding area, get very hot talking on my phone for any length of time. To the point where it's uncomfortable. This is explained by the fact that the phone itself gets hot. Not some crazy radiation based theory.

Jeremy Lindgren (vita10gy), Eau Claire, WI
September 10, 2008 12:39pm

The purpose of me coming into this website was, today I attended a network marketing company seminar promoting their product. The company name was Amega Global. They were promoting some titanium, platinium products which they say are able to protect against cellphone RF and other radiation. Provides energy and cure stress, physical pain and many more. Looks like they are operating in many countries...think should stop them before they send the wrong message.
The website is www.amegaglobal.com

Nathan, Singapore
September 16, 2008 9:19am

I am a pediatric neurosurgeon, and regularly treat brain tumor patients as well as doing molecular biology research on brain tumors.

My question is why is there not an epidemic of ear cancer? The brain is underneath the scalp, skull, dura, and CSF. Those nasty rays from the cell phones should be causing ear cancer everywhere. Maybe it is time to change progressions (I will specialize in treating Ear cancer, it should be a growth industry).

When this topic comes up in my practice, the premise that 'there is no definitive proof that cell phones dont cause brain tumors' comes up. We all know that you can't prove a negative, and that the burden of proof is on those who say that brain tumors are caused. I realize that this response is non satisfying to those I offer it to. Instead, I usually point out that there are several good papers showing a lack of risk between brain tumors and cell phones. However, there are no papers that I am aware that show that carrots do not cause brain tumors. In light of this, I suggest that carrots be eaten with caution.

Michael D. Taylor, Toronto, Canada
September 16, 2008 9:38am

MD Taylor MD, what do you think about this correlation with acoustic neuroma?

http://oem.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/64/9/626

Max, Boston, MA
September 18, 2008 12:16am

Supposing that the radio waves put out by cell phones must have a "physiological effect" without giving any possible mechanism is merely handwaving. A physiological effect is a flux of ions moving, changes in a protein's activity, secretion of biologically active chemicals, etc. How are radio waves doing this when they don't have enough energy to interact with any molecules?
Radio waves have an extremely long wavelength, and with that comes an extremely low energy content. If cell phones ran on X-Rays, then yes, there would be cause for concern because we know that X-Rays contain enough energy to break (and therefore mutate) DNA. However, radio passes through solids unaffected, that's why you can get reception when there is a wall in the way, whereas visible light, which interacts (because it is of higher energy) is absorbed or reflected, making your walls appear solid.

I think a much more serious health risk associated with cell phones has to do with aggression from ME when the cell phone user is obnoxious, disrespectful, or just plain annoying.

Shane, Guelph, ON, Canada
September 18, 2008 1:49am

Max,

1) That is one paper among a vast literature, most of which does not find a relationship.

2)It is published in an obscure journal. While this does mean you should dismiss it out of hand, it should make you wonder why? If their results were so earthshaking why isnt it in the New England Journal (I suspect ties between the cell phone companies and the mafia).

3) This is not really a data paper, but rather a sort of meta-analysis. It is much better to look at the original data yourself.

4) For example, see the metaanalysis by Peter Kan and John Kestle (U Utah) published in J Neuro-Onc. I know John Kestle, he is a very good epidemiologist. Their meta-analysis has exactly the opposite conclusion.

5) When a study with better design (i.e., prospective) is published, its results are generally thought to trump earlier studies with weaker designs. More recent prospective studies have not shown a relationship between cell phones and brain tumors

6) In the last 1980's almost no one had a cell phone. Now everyone does. Why is it then that the incidence of brain tumors in adults is stable, and in children is dropping? Maybe the cell phone rays are actually good and they are preventing/treating brain tumors in children (hope you get the sarcasm here).

7) Finally, there is no good biological reason that cell phones should cause any kind of tumor. Even ionizing radiation (strong stuff used to treat cancer)has a weak link with brain tumors

Michael D. Taylor, Toronto, Canada
September 18, 2008 7:00am

Forget about your brain what about youre testes. Today CNN with their regular quality science reporting(ahem) reported with the following headline - "Cell phones can affect sperm quality, researcher says".

http://us.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/conditions/09/18/cellphone.sperm/index.html

You have to go into the article to realize this proclemation is based on a study of 32 samples. Even the researcher himself admit that his study sample size is meaningless, that it requires peer review and that at this time the scientific community finds no adverse effects from cell phone use. In addition his only explanation is the warming effect of said cellphones on said testes. Didn't stop him from running to CNN with a juicy headline they can't refuse.

Also mentioned in the same article is another research, this time based on the grand total sample size of 361 pairs of you know what. But based solely on self reported data. "So do you tend to put the phone on vibrate often?"

Great job CNN! It takes balls to stay away from sensationalism(sorry had to pun away a little bit)

Shahar Lubin, Bangkok, Thailand
September 18, 2008 7:53pm

I suggest that they try holding the phone in the traditional manner.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
September 18, 2008 8:24pm

"Thats why I feel, that my brain cells become disoriented and dont function normally."

haha thats hilarious, I have another one, "if only my body had a brain"

Alex, NZ
September 22, 2008 1:40am

I thought the potential damage from cell phones came from the nuclear battery used to power the cell phone, not from the way a cell phone transmits its signal.

Lindsey, Eugene
September 30, 2008 12:16pm

Simply put, anyone who disputes the physical realities of the effects of cellular radiation, needs to give their head a shake, studies or no studies.

There needs to mass class-action, and litigate the mother out of the cellular phone carriers, end of story.

nobody, nowhere
October 06, 2008 12:37pm

So... there is no evidence of effects of cellphone of radiation, no strong studies that show a mechanism of potential damage and "studies or no studies" and you want to go to court, eh?

No wonder people see the US as overly litigious.

Just curious - do they send a bill to the losers in cases of vexatious litigation?

Brenton, New Zealand
October 06, 2008 3:01pm

Sorry to break the news to you 'Brenton', but I don't need a study to tell me ever time I take a call on my phone, my head feels like its in the freakin microwave. But they're not responsible right?

No more cell phones for me. Your brain, not mine. Hope it works out for you.

PS. Overly litigious? Maybe one day when you get off your little island, you'll join the rest of the world.

Tex, AZ
October 06, 2008 5:17pm

Tex - I got off my little island (Australia) and moved to NZ, because I like the lifestyle here.

I have also travelled extensively to the rest of the world - primarily through - Asia and Europe, and worked (for a time) at a telco, for various engineering laboratories (in fields including RF instrument calibration), for the Australian Navy as a radio and instrument calibration technician and at a pharmaceutical company.

I am now studying marine science full time and working part time in IT.

Does that sound "off my little island" enough for you?

From your microwave comment above, you appear to be linking a simple heating effect with a cause of cancer.

Does sitting in a hot room cause cancer? It can raise your skin temperature at least as much as using a phone.

How about taking a hot bath?

No?

What about exposing yourself to excessive UV - which apart from some short term erythermia - can have no physical effects for years....

How about being bathed in x-rays or exposed to ionising radiation - which have NO immediately physically discernable effects at all?

Don't confuse what you can feel now with any long term effects.

That is WHY they do studies - to find out if links between cause and effect exist.

Oh, and for the record, I don't use my mobile much - I dislike the heating sensation on my head. But when I do, I do so without the slightest fear of cancer.

Brenton, New Zealand
October 06, 2008 5:58pm

I dont have eniting to anderstand

Reynard Sengseng, PiIlippino
January 11, 2009 2:21am

It is incredible to me that people can listen to enough of these podcasts to bother writing a response, and yet still claim that their vague personal experiences somehow trump good science and rational thought.

There are a million reasons why talking on a cell might make one dizzy or give them a headache. Perhaps they have an inner ear infection. Maybe the volume is too loud. Maybe your phone is overheating. Maybe the signal is bad so your getting a faint high-pitched buzz in the background. Maybe you are talking to your ex-wife.

I can think of a dozen reasons why talking on a cell phone might make you feel crappy, but none of them involve imaginary radiation causing an imaginary tumor. What's the point of saving your brain from cancer if you don't bother using it?

H. Tiberius Miser, Toronto, Ontario
January 15, 2009 8:40am

Rational thought has nothing to do with it - as people have different views on what is 'rational'.

Perhaps we should all accept the fact that unless ALOT of people start getting cancer immediately after using a mobile - AND it can be proven that it's related to mobile phone use - then mobile phones ARE HERE TO STAY.

Even then if there was a proven connection and associated increased risk of cancer, i'd be more than certain that people and authorities would deem this risk as 'acceptable' simply because of the value mobile phones are to our way of life.

So to the scientific and medical community i say - go ahead, prove the connection. Coz it aint gonna do jack. For example, people know of the health risks of alcohol, driving to work etc. Do you see that being changed?

Anthony.

Anthony, Adelaide
January 21, 2009 3:05pm

Great article,I'm sick of these people getting ripped off with those headsets and making me all worried and making think I'm going to die for using a cellphone.Any way I'll try to minimize my use of cell phones just in case.I think it can still cause diseases but it's not as bad as smoking,etc.

Peter, Doha,Qatar
February 15, 2009 1:07am

Anthony:

People's beliefs about what constitutes rational thought are irrelevant. Rational thought is an objectively defined concept independent of people's subjective opinions.

Thought is rational when inferences derived from accepted premises follow according to the laws of logic and probability.

Joe Duncan, Kingston, Ontario
February 25, 2009 11:57am

Are mobile phones dangerous?

ben 10, oxford
March 16, 2009 10:38am

Ben, the simple answer is .. it depends.

There is currently no solid evidence that cellphones are dangerous.

There are anecdotes, but nothing solid.

Brenton, New Zealand
March 16, 2009 3:01pm

mobile phone are dangerous in many ways but they do come in handy.
for example they are there if you need them for an emergincies.

everyone knows they are unsafe but they dont do anything about it.

there are loads of people who say they are safe to use ,and loads that say they are dangerous.

it all depends on how you look at it really.

beacuse if you use your phone correctly and not spend so many hours on it then it wont give you cancer or a tuma.

mobile phones are mainly used by children or by teenageswhich is a bad thing .

because they give off radiation ignals to your brain and thats when you start to get tumas or even cancer for that matter.

shikarna, england
March 19, 2009 5:47am

As a trained scientist & journalist & as an atheist, I've been in a position to hand-hold many a friend who gets spooked by unfounded media blips & chicken little scenarios. The alleged cell phone menace is just the latest fad fear. I'm intriqued by the psychology & sociopolitical roots & effects of group dynamics, propaganda, & hysteria.

calamity progress, seattle, wa
March 24, 2009 1:47am

mobile phones are quite dangerous only if use you use often like teenagers who use there mobile phone 24/7 non stop then yeah its dangerous but not when use not that often. but mobile phones are useful as you can contact someone if you need heelp or emergencies

tman, luton
April 08, 2009 3:39am

Awesome episode. I was always skeptical of such cell phone claims. You have really nailed it down nicely here.

Skeptoid, Toronto
April 09, 2009 4:19pm

I am currently in year10 at secondary level - and i have been asked to put together a case study on whether mobile phones are safe, a have to include a scientific theory, and also evidents, but i'm having trouble finding the right kind of information: could anyone give me some advice, information etc. As i am really quite stuck on this.
Thanks.

Emma*, Peterborough
April 11, 2009 5:13am

I think that the problem is that the industry doesn't want us to know it, and the big companies hush up any reasearch perjudicial to them. What you expected they would say? That their produce is harmful? They will never say that! The tobacco industry has been telling us for decades that smoking is not dangerous, and yet it is.
I have seen my father investigating that issue for a many years, and I am absolutely convinced that there is a <strong>real danger</strong>.</p>
<p> Look, for instance, look that article: <a href="http://www.istokbcn.com/ingles/tests/test_termografias3.php" title="Temperature measuring of personal computer operator's hands with the help of infrared thermography">Temperature measuring of personal computer operator's hands with the help of infrared thermography</a>
The use of computers (another thing that big companies don't want us to know) INCREASE the body's temperature, and it's proved that mobiles have similar effects.

That other article is about <a href="http://www.istokbcn.com/ingles/tests/test_kirlian.php" title="mobile phones effects">mobile phones effects</a>. For this test, the device Aurospectrophotometer 2100(USA) was used. That device was developed for objective estimation of physiological and psychological state of human organism through high-frequency glow color gamma fixation. And you can see through the images that that state <strong>changes </strong>when we use a mobile phone.

Ksenia Klykova, Barcelona, Spain
April 11, 2009 9:14am

In fairness, the guys on the show are trying to do a revisit of the show. The problems is they were never allowed to do it in the air because of insurance reasons. That and no one allowed them to use a jet to debunk the claim.

So I ask you on the behalf of science, does anybody have a private jet they are not using?

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
April 11, 2009 12:06pm

ITS FINE IF YOU DONT USE IT THAT OFTEN

bubba, bubba city
April 16, 2009 3:47pm

I was ask to debate whether cell phones cause cancer or not. When my group chose me to present our argument i freaked and now I'm looking for something to help me.

Donna, New York City
April 29, 2009 5:18pm

all of it, all the radiation, even the EMF's from wiring in buildings, electric blankets, etc affect our bodies.

20 years from now this won't be so ambiguous anymore, in part because they'll keep pushing and pushing the envelope until the damage is undeniable. groupthink won't shelter foks from that truth. You may get by unscathed but it's like other checks we've cashed with any idea where the money's
going to come from, it's important to keep in mind that governments dont' have a concience nor real accountability, same for corporations, same for groups, same for "experts" and "authorities". Medecine is an inexact science, there are unkowns. Sadly it's often the most vulnerable that take the hit.
But since everyone's really lost in a "reality" of their own design, we'll all probably go on believing what we want to believe.

http://www.emfacts.com/forum/1_3ezine8.html

http://www.abc.net.au/http/sfist/cellrad.htm

http://www.rense.com/general40/cell.htm

your body's melatonin levels are dropped by use of an electric blanket to a level that "may" make you vulnerable to certain types of breast cancer (yes, men too). where' s the proof? If you look into this far enough common sense will fill in the gaps.

In 1990, Norwegian researchers Tynes and Andersen reported that breast cancer occurred more frequently among men who worked in electrical occupations in Norway. The number of cases totaling 12 could not be dismissed as natural.

http://www.cyonic-nemeton.com/Emf.html

Algernon, slowing down, ca
April 30, 2009 6:56pm

My dad bought me a verizon phone with a camera on it. I thought it was so cool. I started using it in my car and it made me sick. It gave me headaches, nausea, my ear was hott and just felt sick. I would have to lay down about 2-3 hours cause I just felt sick with a headache. I remember the whole side of my head on the right side hurt for like a week once. Still 5 years later and I still get pain behind and below my right ear where it first came about while using this damn phone that I sent back to verizon. Im worried that I have a cancer growing from using this phone. I remember after using my phone once after I got out of my car I went to shut my car door and zap it shocked me like my phone charged me up or somthing it was wierd, and felt so sick. Im so mad at companys for selling a product like this. And not having any warnings or anything. Companys shouldnt mess with people like me cause I can make there life a nightmare just like they made mine.

jim, ny ,usa
June 15, 2009 9:49pm

@jim

Visit a doctor. Your sickness is not cancer and not only caused by phone i think. Read please about static electricity - www.sciencemadesimple.com/static.html

Ruslan, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
June 28, 2009 3:07pm

This thread outta be dead by now since my last 2 cents' worth, but here we are. Look, it is very EZ for any schoolkid to research current knowledge of minor league EM radiation on human cells & constituent molecules. Nothing even remotely alarming about the pitiful output of cell phones, nor the constant bombardment by ambient radiation, bothe natural & human made. So far as anecdotal scare stories are concerened, hey -- I have several bizarre painful, sometime debilatating medical conditions which remain unexplained. Join the club, my friends, you are in sympathetic company.

calamity progress, seattle, wa, usa
August 10, 2009 8:43pm

I'm a physicist and I've just written a blog about cell phone and microwave oven radiation. Please check it out (and draw your own conclusions):

http://intensive-purposes.blogspot.com/2009/08/will-microwave-radiation-give-you_19.html

Gandolph, Charlottesville, VA
August 24, 2009 11:21am

it's usefull to express my points in oral presentation

sony, chennai
August 29, 2009 8:18pm

agree

sahrah, WA
November 25, 2009 2:10pm

i have a mobile phone and i really think that they are spiffingly dangerous to the socitey. it is outragous!

polly anna, liverpool
February 08, 2010 4:32am

Well cool. I agree.

Jade, Leeds, Pudsey
February 10, 2010 6:08am

I suppose even skeptics should be listened to with a measure of skepticism, but I appreciated the article very much. Sounds beleivable to me.

Dave, Carlsbad, CA, USA
February 16, 2010 6:57pm

I find that the general public just Loves "Witch Hunts".

R.N. Black, Santa Fe, NM, USA
February 17, 2010 4:10pm

Tbhis is false information.
after using my cell phone for four years im beginning to feel some sensitivity in my head and on the same side of my face my upper teeth are bothering me.

this is coming from cell phone radiation. this radiation is actual microwaves, and using them over a period of time are actually frying your brain.
just look up the guy online who had a tumor in the exact spot where i am feeling pressure and sensitivity in my head: same exact area which is right on the temple.

sory cell phone radiation is real and cell phones need to be stopped and a new technology developed for portable phone usage.

paul mack, Rochester NY
March 09, 2010 2:30pm

does it cause cancer??????

kim, hamburg
March 10, 2010 9:04am

Don't believe the idiotic misinformation from this article!!
Cell Phone Radiation danger is real!!
Just use your common sense!
How about how you feel when using a cell phone for too long? Headaches and heat are obvious red flags!!!

Use the speaker phone and/or "wired headsets" as much as possible to limit your exposure!
"Some" of those devices that reduce or eliminate the radiation actually do work and are based on real science!!!

Paul, New York
March 18, 2010 10:08am

Paul, you really should try to grasp the difference between non-ionizing and ionizing radiation.

Any possibility of links to this "real science"?

Maruis vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia.
March 18, 2010 11:16pm

This article says microwave radiation is not ionizing and cannont damage DNA. Other articles that appear to be legit say it is.

What's the truth?

Look up the scientist Henry Lai from University of Washington who first published this finding in 1990's.

Also see the GQ article (I know this is not science publication) which references other studies which sound legit on the topic of cell phone hazards. I would appreciate someone debunking all this ... if it's debunkable.

Steve, Raleigh, NC
May 01, 2010 6:58am

So is cell phone really dangerouse?

Maya, Vanocuver, wa
May 11, 2010 8:30am

A report indicates that cell phones may have an effect on mating behavior -- in rabbits -- when the active phones are next to their genitals.
They documented the ruttings (under admittedly artificial conditions) of six male rabbits that had switched-on phones near their genitals for 12 weeks, six that had switched-off phones, and another six that were phoneless.

The scientists noted the particulars of each mounting, and watched for the moment each rabbit went into "a state of sexual exhaustion". They report that the bunnies with active phones "got sexually exhausted earlier". This discovery, they emphasise, "might have some practical implications".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jun/07/improbable-research-mobile-phones-bonking-bunnies

Glen, Victoria, Canada
June 07, 2010 9:26pm

Just a coincidence that both your major ads are for, or related to, cel technology..........I think not.

david, sd
June 18, 2010 9:58pm

You are correct, it is not a coincidence. Google chooses ads based on the content of the page in which they appear. Note the disclaimer that I have on the page directly above the ad, which explains why I don't filter them.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel
June 22, 2010 8:52am

I concur with the assessment that Cell Phone usage doesn't cause brain cancer. However, there's evidence to support that use of the Radar Gun by Police Officers in close proximity to their genitals caused an increase in Testicular Cancer.

Abstract
Within a cohort of 340 police officers, six incident cases of testicular cancer occurred between 1979 and 1991 (O/E 6.9; p<0.001, Poisson distribution). Occupational use of hand-held radar was the only shared risk factor among all six officers, and all routinely held the radar gun directly in close proximity to their testicles. Health effects of occupational radar use have not been widely studied, and further research into a possible association with testicular cancer is warranted. © 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114079376/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Matt Morgan, San Diego
June 22, 2010 10:00am

i do not think mobile phones are dangerous because they can be useful at times!

anam, derbyshire
July 14, 2010 1:21am

"Just a coincidence that both your major ads are for, or related to, cel technology..........I think not."

You have GOT to be kidding, David. You don't know that ads are placed on pages to coincide with keywords in the text of those pages?

Ah, grand conspiracies. Now I suppose you think that Brian has been paid by the Corporate Paymasters to debunk cell phone radiation dangers.

How silly.

Grow up.

I'm surprised you could solve the math problem required to submit your posting to this site.

Hans, Portland, Oregon
September 03, 2010 1:54pm