If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Science Daily)   Scientists who still don't get that whole correlation/causation thing find cell phones give you cancer. Maybe. Eventually. Somehow   (sciencedaily.com) divider line 88
    More: Asinine, cell phones, Tel Aviv University, cancer mortality rates, correlations, radio waves, free radicals, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, electromagnetic field  
•       •       •

1665 clicks; posted to Geek » on 29 Jul 2013 at 4:11 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-29 04:15:41 PM
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-07-29 04:16:57 PM
Pressure makes diamonds.

Dead, cold, diamonds.
 
2013-07-29 04:18:44 PM

neversubmit: Pressure makes diamonds.

Dead, cold, diamonds.



www.thiel-a-vision.com

Molto bene!
 
2013-07-29 04:21:53 PM
Comparing heavy mobile phone users to non-users

So, they compared people in their 20s to people in their 70s?
 
2013-07-29 04:26:34 PM
They almost certainly don't.
 
2013-07-29 04:30:06 PM

PizzaJedi81: neversubmit: Pressure makes diamonds.

Dead, cold, diamonds.


[www.thiel-a-vision.com image 500x275]

Molto bene!


huh, just watched that one last night.
 
2013-07-29 04:33:05 PM

Earguy: So, they compared people in their 20s to people in their 70s?


Maybe iphone users vs. folks that haven't upgraded since the "phone-as-a-boombox" 1980s..
 
2013-07-29 04:36:40 PM
non-ionizing radiation.
 
2013-07-29 04:41:41 PM

neversubmit: Pressure makes diamonds.

Dead, cold, diamonds.


Just don't tell anyone that irritation makes pearls or we'll never hear the end of it.
 
2013-07-29 04:43:26 PM
I knew we would have a way to solve social security shortfalls. Well maybe if it leads to lymphatic cancer.
 
2013-07-29 04:45:06 PM

PizzaJedi81: [imgs.xkcd.com image 459x185]


Did you see this one?

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-07-29 04:46:00 PM
i7.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-29 04:46:35 PM
/shakes tiny fist at draypresct
//sooo close
 
2013-07-29 04:47:57 PM
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2013-07-29 05:05:22 PM
Their salivary content was compared to that of a control group, which consisted of deaf patients who either do not use a cell phone, or use the device exclusively for sending text messages and other non-verbal functions.

So...people who don't do a lot of talking?

Pity they can't sample from specific salivary glands (I'm assuming they just got people to spit in a cut).  I wonder if glands on the side the phone is commonly held show more oxidative stress than the glands on the opposite side.

I'd also like to see studies done on light cellphone users as compared to heavy users.  That might be a little more convincing.

...wait.  Oxidative stress is caused by oxygen (obviously), which is found in every cell.  Singlet oxygen is a particularly vicious reactive oxygen species, and differs from triplet oxygen (the ground state) by a spin-flip in an electron, and the energy of transition for that is *copious Googling later* nowhere near radio or even the microwave region.

Your cellphone is not generating singlet oxygen.  I should have realised that, since it generally requires visible light and a photocatalyst.
 
2013-07-29 05:06:45 PM
Well, in this instance, they didn't just test for a bunch of relationships and report the significant runs.  They hypothesized this relationship before they tested for it and in my mind that lends a little more credibility.    If a little phone can do that, I wonder what this big laptop sitting on my junk is doing.
 
2013-07-29 05:06:48 PM

lohphat: /shakes tiny fist at draypresct
//sooo close


I think that's the first time I've 'won' one of those.
 
2013-07-29 05:08:41 PM

wjllope: non-ionizing radiation.


Yeah, doesn't matter that stepping out into the sun exposes you to radiation that is magnitudes higher strength than a cell phone, and that it actually DOES cause cancer to be exposed to it over long enough of a time frame.

All they hear is "RADIATION"!1111!!11 OMG!!! MOVE TO WEST VIRGINIA!!!!
 
2013-07-29 05:14:35 PM
imageshack.us
 
2013-07-29 05:17:00 PM

Pumpernickel bread: Well, in this instance, they didn't just test for a bunch of relationships and report the significant runs.  They hypothesized this relationship before they tested for it and in my mind that lends a little more credibility.    If a little phone can do that, I wonder what this big laptop sitting on my junk is doing.


We don't actually know that they didn't do just that, and come up with the hypothesis afterwards. Salivary glands don't seem like an obvious first guess (IANA cancer researcher).

If it was their primary, initial focus, you'd think they'd sample the gland output on either side of the mouth and see if there was a difference in the oxidative stress between the two sides for heavy cell phone users. This is what the "UV causes cancer" group did looking at skin cancers on the right and the left arm among drivers. They found a pretty big difference, with much higher rates on the left arm in the US and Australia, IIRC. It's an easy way to rule out various other exposures and confounding factors.
 
2013-07-29 05:19:47 PM

Pumpernickel bread: Well, in this instance, they didn't just test for a bunch of relationships and report the significant runs.  They hypothesized this relationship before they tested for it and in my mind that lends a little more credibility.    If a little phone can do that, I wonder what this big laptop sitting on my junk is doing.


Your cell phone is designed to talk to a tower miles away. Your laptop is designed to talk to a router and gets fussy if you're too far on the other side of the house. Either way, you're talking about things that almost certainly by definition can't do what they are suspected of doing.
 
2013-07-29 05:23:01 PM

wjllope: non-ionizing radiation.


Yes, but direct ionization isn't the only way that electromagnetic fields can interact with biological systems.
 
2013-07-29 05:30:21 PM

jonny_q: Your laptop is designed to talk to a router and gets fussy if you're too far on the other side of the house.


Max cellphone power is about 1W, give or take. The maximum power of a wifi device is about 40mw, so yes, there is a huge difference. But thanks to the inverse square law, even when a phone is directly against your head, the amount of power your head absorbs is  very low. I ran the math once, can't be arsed to bother again.
 
2013-07-29 05:44:46 PM
I dunno, when I read that they compared the cell phone user group to the control group which is 20 Deaf people something kinda seems weird about that. Why not just 20 people that don't have a cell phone?
 
2013-07-29 05:45:51 PM
For the study, the researchers examined ... 20 heavy-user patients

20 people.
 
2013-07-29 06:00:12 PM
ITT: people who took Biology in high school and sometimes click on science stories on slashdot cast doubt on the credibility of MD/PhDs working at a world-class research institution.

I guess it's understandable.  They are suggesting that something you like doing might be bad for you.
 
2013-07-29 06:24:16 PM
What do we have, about a decade of near total adoption in the USA and Europe?

If there was going to be a problem then we'd have an increase by now. Even if it's a long term problem there'd be trouble for heavy users by now.

Heck, if there was going to be any trouble you'd have seen increases in HAM radio operators.
 
2013-07-29 06:43:46 PM

chaunceymo: They are suggesting that something you like doing might be bad for you.


Based on a sample size of 20. It's a good thing PhDs and MDs never write shiatty papers just because they think a degree justifies any shiat they dump.
 
2013-07-29 06:52:20 PM

wjllope: non-ionizing radiation.

 
2013-07-29 07:05:28 PM
Subby, Cell Signal Encoding is made of cancer.  It accumulated in your phone and is absorbed through skin contact on your hands, ear, etc.  That is how cell phones gives you cancer.
 
2013-07-29 07:14:27 PM
Farkers are a fickle bunch.... Never tell them that vaccines and cell phones have side effects... but feel free to rant all day long about the horrors of global warming and tanning.
 
2013-07-29 07:22:11 PM

T.rex: Farkers are a fickle bunch.... Never tell them that vaccines and cell phones have side effects... but feel free to rant all day long about the horrors of global warming and tanning.


We acknowledge vaccines have side effects.  Those are well documented (note: Polio vaccination didn't cause HIV/AIDS and vaccines don't cause autism).

Cell phone side effects have conflicting results, but they are largely leaning towards "No Harm Done".
 
2013-07-29 07:27:03 PM

meat0918: T.rex: Farkers are a fickle bunch.... Never tell them that vaccines and cell phones have side effects... but feel free to rant all day long about the horrors of global warming and tanning.

We acknowledge vaccines have side effects.  Those are well documented (note: Polio vaccination didn't cause HIV/AIDS and vaccines don't cause autism).

Cell phone side effects have conflicting results, but they are largely leaning towards "No Harm Done".


If someone points out side effects of vaccines on fark, they are automatically deemed on the level of Jenny McCarthy.  Don't pretend thats not true. 

Cell phones have been in heavy use since when? 10 years?    Some soldiers who witnessed the atom bomb tests didn't develop mutation from the radiation until some 40 years later....   At best, we can say, 'we don't know the side effects of cell phones, if any.   Too early to tell'.
 
2013-07-29 07:48:41 PM

T.rex: Farkers are a fickle bunch.... Never tell them that vaccines and cell phones have side effects... but feel free to rant all day long about the horrors of global warming and tanning.


The distinction is the former two have no evidence supporting them (vaccines cause autism and cell phones cause cancer) and the latter two have lots of evidence supporting them.  Bring plenty of credible evidence first then put them in the same category as global warming.
 
2013-07-29 08:02:12 PM

T.rex: Cell phones have been in heavy use since when? 10 years?    Some soldiers who witnessed the atom bomb tests didn't develop mutation from the radiation until some 40 years later....   At best, we can say, 'we don't know the side effects of cell phones, if any.   Too early to tell'.


It's fine if you want to see a long term study on heavy cell phone use, but as others have pointed out in the thread, the radiation coming off an atomic bomb will have lots of ionizing radiation whereas the radiation coming from a cell phone is non ionizing.  Cell phone use lacks a recognized mechanism for causing cancer (ex. ionizing radiation).
 
2013-07-29 08:09:45 PM
Scientists who still don't get that whole correlation/causation thing find cell phones give you cancer. Maybe. Eventually. Somehow

My question is why are environmental scientists studying causes of cancer.
 
2013-07-29 09:08:37 PM

t3knomanser: chaunceymo: They are suggesting that something you like doing might be bad for you.

Based on a sample size of 20. It's a good thing PhDs and MDs never write shiatty papers just because they think a degree justifies any shiat they dump.


Well, I won't say that this paper is anything definitive at all.  But, there are a substantial number of prominent neurologists who claim that there is enough evidence out there to justify quite a bit more study into the subject.  I can list a few if you want, but I've done that in other threads.

Now, I don't think that any of those people are saying that nobody should use cell phones, but those people do say that they prevent their own young children from heavy cell phone use for that very reason.

People get hung up on non ionizing radiation.  Yeah, ionizing radiation is bad.  But just because radiation is non ionizing doesn't mean that its A-OK.  I mean, microwave radiation is non ionizing, but its probably not healthy to stick your head in a microwave.  In fact, I believe this is one concern - a device right next to your head that does some kind of dielectric heating of interior tissues might not be a good idea, even if the heating is very small.

The bottom line is that we should do more research, and it might be smart to keep kids from using cell phones excessively.  Nobody should panic, but people shouldn't be dismissive either.
 
2013-07-29 09:47:29 PM

Ivo Shandor: wjllope: non-ionizing radiation.

Yes, but direct ionization isn't the only way that electromagnetic fields can interact with biological systems.


Yes, electromagnetic radiation can deliver thermal energy, sometimes significantly (e.g. microwave ovens). Cell phones do not have the power to affect human physiology.
 
2013-07-29 09:53:40 PM

revrendjim: Ivo Shandor: wjllope: non-ionizing radiation.

Yes, but direct ionization isn't the only way that electromagnetic fields can interact with biological systems.

Yes, electromagnetic radiation can deliver thermal energy, sometimes significantly (e.g. microwave ovens). Cell phones do not have the power to affect human physiology.


Nah, ahh. I saw people pop popcorn using phones on youtube. Youtube doesn't like.
 
2013-07-29 09:55:23 PM

Krazikarl: t3knomanser: chaunceymo: They are suggesting that something you like doing might be bad for you.

Based on a sample size of 20. It's a good thing PhDs and MDs never write shiatty papers just because they think a degree justifies any shiat they dump.

Well, I won't say that this paper is anything definitive at all.  But, there are a substantial number of prominent neurologists who claim that there is enough evidence out there to justify quite a bit more study into the subject.  I can list a few if you want, but I've done that in other threads.

Now, I don't think that any of those people are saying that nobody should use cell phones, but those people do say that they prevent their own young children from heavy cell phone use for that very reason.

People get hung up on non ionizing radiation.  Yeah, ionizing radiation is bad.  But just because radiation is non ionizing doesn't mean that its A-OK.  I mean, microwave radiation is non ionizing, but its probably not healthy to stick your head in a microwave.  In fact, I believe this is one concern - a device right next to your head that does some kind of dielectric heating of interior tissues might not be a good idea, even if the heating is very small.

The bottom line is that we should do more research, and it might be smart to keep kids from using cell phones excessively.  Nobody should panic, but people shouldn't be dismissive either.


Your microwave oven puts out a thousand watts. That will hurt you. Your cell phone delivers less energy into your body than you get by going outside and standing in the sun.
 
2013-07-29 09:56:11 PM
I know farkers know all.  But there's been a growing link between cell phones and GBMs for a while now.  Realize too that it takes YEARS of exposure to a carcinogen to give something cancer.
 
2013-07-29 10:25:36 PM

revrendjim: Your microwave oven puts out a thousand watts. That will hurt you. Your cell phone delivers less energy into your body than you get by going outside and standing in the sun.


Since its dielectric heating, its a frequency dependent thing.  I'd actually be interested in a comparison between the sun's flux vs a cell phone's at cell phone frequencies.
 
2013-07-29 10:32:42 PM

Ivo Shandor: wjllope: non-ionizing radiation.

Yes, but direct ionization isn't the only way that electromagnetic fields can interact with biological systems.


Radio waves can affect biological systems in interesting ways too.  They can increase the rotational velocity of specific molecules within cells which will make that particular molecule's reaction rate increase, while other molecules can remain unaffected.   Obviously, this can lead to a chemical imbalance, which could certainly be a cause of certain forms of cancer as well.
 
2013-07-29 10:38:42 PM

Krazikarl: I'd actually be interested in a comparison between the sun's flux vs a cell phone's at cell phone frequencies.


Cell-phone towers still work when the sun is shining on their antenna, which means the solar flux at that frequency is not strong enough to drown out the received signal from your handset a mile away. Now consider the inverse-square law.
 
2013-07-29 10:39:06 PM

Krazikarl: revrendjim: Your microwave oven puts out a thousand watts. That will hurt you. Your cell phone delivers less energy into your body than you get by going outside and standing in the sun.

Since its dielectric heating, its a frequency dependent thing.  I'd actually be interested in a comparison between the sun's flux vs a cell phone's at cell phone frequencies.


Ok that's legit. Somewhere out there is data that would address that. I'm not a chemist.
 
2013-07-29 10:43:09 PM

Ivo Shandor: Krazikarl: I'd actually be interested in a comparison between the sun's flux vs a cell phone's at cell phone frequencies.

Cell-phone towers still work when the sun is shining on their antenna, which means the solar flux at that frequency is not strong enough to drown out the received signal from your handset a mile away. Now consider the inverse-square law.


Umm...the solar radiation is not modulated at any particular frequency. Its just white noise. Are you sure you passed college physics?
 
2013-07-29 10:52:31 PM

Bondith: ...wait.  Oxidative stress is caused by oxygen (obviously), which is found in every cell.  Singlet oxygen is a particularly vicious reactive oxygen species, and differs from triplet oxygen (the ground state) by a spin-flip in an electron, and the energy of transition for that is *copious Googling later* nowhere near radio or even the microwave region.


The authors did not measure singlet oxygen in the paper, and it is not biologically relavent in vivo.  The reactive oxygen species they mention are peroxide (H2O2) and oxygen radicals, which in a biological systemmeans superoxide (O2-.) or the hydroxyl radical (OH.), all of which are found in  living tissue.


You are correct that reactive oxygen species will not be formed directly by non-ionizing radiation.  They are formed by the (usually) inappropriate reduction of O2by cellular enzymes, which could be affected by non-ionizing radiation.
 
2013-07-29 11:01:56 PM

meat0918: wjllope: non-ionizing radiation.

Yeah, doesn't matter that stepping out into the sun exposes you to radiation that is magnitudes higher strength than a cell phone, and that it actually DOES cause cancer to be exposed to it over long enough of a time frame.

All they hear is "RADIATION"!1111!!11


Wait'll that here that bananas are radioactive.
 
2013-07-29 11:02:10 PM

T.rex: Cell phones have been in heavy use since when? 10 years? Some soldiers who witnessed the atom bomb tests didn't develop mutation from the radiation until some 40 years later.... At best, we can say, 'we don't know the side effects of cell phones, if any. Too early to tell'.


The key difference being that we didn't know much about radiation in those days. Thankfully, we've learned quite a bit since then.

At any rate, this study seems to be about the oxidation in saliva content of heavy cell phone users vs. deaf people. Obviously, this alone doesn't tell you much -- from this study one might conclude that being able to hear causes cancer, for example. Or that speaking causes cancer.
 
2013-07-29 11:02:45 PM

ArcadianRefugee: Wait'll that here that bananas are radioactive.


Well, i farked up that sentence.

"Wait'll they hear...".

/grumble grumble sober grumble
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report