Mobile Phones Don't Cause Cancer

Not that I ever thought they did, but finally there's some solid research to back this up.

Mobile phone use does not lead to a greater risk of brain tumour, the largest study on the issue has said.

The study of 2,782 people across the UK found no link between the risk of glioma - the most common type of brain tumour - and length of mobile use.

[...]

The research, which was carried out by the British arm of an international project called Interphone, reiterates the findings of most earlier studies in saying that there is no connection between cancer and mobile phone use.

So how exactly did this urban legend gain so much credibility anyway?

Research author Professor Patricia McKinney, Professor of Paediatric Epidemiology at the Leeds University, said: "For regular mobile phone users, there was no increased risk of developing a glioma associated with mobile phone use."

She acknowledged that there appeared to be an increased risk among brain cancer sufferers on the side of the head where they held the phone.

The team, however, did not put this down to a causal link, because almost exactly the same decreased risk was seen on the other side of the head, leaving no overall increase risk of tumours for mobile phone users.

Instead, they blamed biased reporting from brain tumour sufferers who knew what side of the head their tumours were on. (emphasis added)

This conclusion is hard to dispute unless one wishes to argue that cell phones magically redistribute over one's head a fixed probability of brain cancer arising. The allegations of a link between brain tumors and cell phones are pure garbage, and it says something about the sheer extent of public ignorance of elementary physics that such claims were ever taken seriously: low frequency electromagnetic particles simply don't have the energy required to damage DNA, no matter how intensely they're being emitted, and anyone with even the most passing familiarity with quantum mechanics ought to be able to understand why. Once the importance of threshold frequency to radiation's capacity to ionize molecules is grasped, it becomes obvious why one needn't await studies like this one reported by the BBC to dismiss allegations of cancer-inducing powerlines and mobile phones as so much quackery lapped up by ignorant hordes who take fright at anything with the word "radiation" associated with it.

Comments

[Jim]

"so much quackery lapped up by ignorant hordes who take fright at anything with the word "radiation" associated with it."

It may have been before your time, but when microwave ovens came out, there were people who wouldn't eat food that had microwaves in it.

Anyway considering the number of lives that have been saved because people had cell phones on them and could call for help and have it reach them before it was too late, a few cancer death would have been a small trade off, had there ever been any.

[Julian Elson]

No. They just cause irritation.

[dsquared]

hang on ... not all carcinogens work by damaging DNA, and if you can boil an egg with a mobile phone, you can certainly cause enough irritation to the tissue to have a potentially carcinogenic effect. I'm perfectly prepared to believe these guys' research that it's not a material risk factor, but you're not right to claim that you can read this off a "passing knowledge of quantum mechanics".

[Abiola]

"not all carcinogens work by damaging DNA"

Well then, what other mechanisms *are* there by which electromagnetic waves could possibly cause cancer? Please detail for me any you're aware of, and links to any serious papers which list them.

"if you can boil an egg with a mobile phone, you can certainly cause enough irritation to the tissue to have a potentially carcinogenic effect."

If all it took to cause cancer were a little heat, most people who'd suffered from heat blisters would have ended up having to see oncologists - care to show me an elevated cancer risk in burn victims? Sorry, but mere "irritation" - whether we're talking heat-induced or that caused by mechanical chafing - cannot seriously be regarded as a causative factor for cancer, which is a disease at whose heart is that some of the body's cells have decided to obey their own rogue instructions at the expense of the rest.

"you're not right to claim that you can read this off a "passing knowledge of quantum mechanics"."

No, in fact I *am.* Cancer research is hardly a field in its infancy, nor is the role of electromagnetism in causing cancer something which began to be investigated yesterday, and unless someone can give me a plausible mechanism by which low-frequency emissions could possibly have carcinogenic effects, I'll continue to say that those who take such claims seriously are scientifically ignorant subscribers to junk science. If one is so concerned about elevated cancer risk, better to meditate on the dangers of exposing oneself to tobacco smoke, being outside in the sunshine and allowing UV rays to hit one's skin, or never bothering to check radon levels in one's basement.

[dsquared]

[care to show me an elevated cancer risk in burn victims? ]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22burn+scar+carcinoma%22

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22non+mutagenic+carcinogens%22

The most common non-mutagenic carcinogen is alcohol, which is why people who drink and smoke are at much greater risk of mouth cancer than people who just smoke. Non-mutagenic carcinogens work by impairing the ability of the cells to repair the sort of genetic damage that occurs every day of the week, according to the internets. (One might also note that there is decent reason to assume that skin cells are better at self-repair than brain cells)

It so happens, apparently, that mobile phones don't cause cancer. But they might have done and it was certainly worth investigating. I for one am glad that medical scientists decide to do the work, in general, rather than relying on arrogant and high-handed pronouncements about what can't possibly be true for anyone who has a "basic knowledge" of something or other.

[dsquared]

[If all it took to cause cancer were a little heat, most people who'd suffered from heat blisters would have ended up having to see oncologists - care to show me an elevated cancer risk in burn victims? ]

also note here that you're mixing up epidemiology with medicine. The statement that "tissue irritation can cause cancer" doesn't imply any particular statement about the frequency of cancer in burn victims.

[me2i81]

Mitogenesis is widely believed to cause mutagenesis. This is the explanation for the "positive" saccharine carcoinogenesis studies--saccharine was given in such high doses that it crystallized in the stomach, causing repeated irritation of the stomach lining. It's also why MTD dosage studies are not useful for predicting carcinogenesis without looking at mechanisms or expected doses.

None of that explains any link to cell phone radiation, however. If that were the case, the daily brain lesions from using a cell phone would be a more immediate issue than long-term tumor risk.

[john king]

the world famoustradition&cultural Mapapa African Acrobatc fire limbo yoga coming tour japan prform at TBV tv program all star haru-No kansya-sai on 2006-4-1sat ch6
and we are looking for support promotions jobs events in japan in your interested pls mail: at: [email protected]