
WHO: Cell phone use can increase cancer risk - antirez
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/
======
crikli
They're classifying cell phone use as a "Group 2B" carcinogen, which means
it's "possibly" carcinogenic. The most famous residents of Group 2B
carcinogens are DDT, lead, and nickel.

Pickled veggies from Asia are also included. Beware the kimchi of death.

Source:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinoge...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinogens)

EDIT: I also want to add that this is yet another case of mass media
distorting a report that is careful to identify a) that there is no causality,
just correlation and b) what exactly the classification means. That headline
is linkbait bullocks: that report does not conclude that "cell phone use can
increase cancer risk." It essentially says, "We're acknowledging that it
might. Possibly. Maybe."

~~~
tptacek
Does the pickle thing correlate with epidemiology? Are there spikes in the
rates of certain cancers in Asia, the way stomach cancer spikes where people
eat lots of smoked fish? Because as I understand it, pickled vegetables are
_extremely_ common in Japan and Korea. Is GI cancer?

~~~
wooster
Stomach cancer is the most prevalent form of cancer in Korea.

Here's a map of the death rate, which doesn't necessarily correspond to the
cancer rate:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stomach_cancer_world_map_-...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stomach_cancer_world_map_-
_Death_-_WHO2004.svg)

And an article on salty diet and stomach cancer in South Korea:

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-salty-diet-
idUS...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/24/us-salty-diet-
idUSTRE62N4KX20100324)

~~~
silentbicycle
It may also have something to do with the high salt intake that accompanies
many of those pickled vegetables.

~~~
tptacek
According to an IARC link Aaron Swartz posted on Twitter, it's the
nitrosamines in fermented pickles.

~~~
silentbicycle
Wouldn't it also be the case with sauerkraut, then?

~~~
tptacek
Probably.

------
hugh3
Cellphones have been in wide use for twenty-something years now. Surely if
there were any _significant_ increase in the risk of cancer it'd be showing up
epidemiologically?

As well as a lack of epidemiological evidence, we still don't have a plausible
mechanism as to how mobile phones _might_ cause brain cancer -- the energies
involved just don't seem to be sufficient to actually do anything bad. I've
seen promising students waste their PhDs on trying to figure out how mobile
phones _might_ be able to cause cancer, only to come up dry.

Incidentally, a handy hint for students (and others) choosing research topics:
avoid asking those questions where one possible answer is interesting and the
other one is boring. If you ask "Does _x_ cause _y_ , and _x_ causing _y_
would be a big deal whereas _x_ being unrelated to _y_ is completely boring,
then that's not a good topic for PhD work.

~~~
zzzeek
> we still don't have a plausible mechanism as to how mobile phones might
> cause brain cancer

Cellphone Use Tied to Brain Activity (nytimes.com):
[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-
tied-...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/cellphone-use-tied-to-
changes-in-brain-activity/)

~~~
evilduck
_"Dr. Volkow said that the latest research is preliminary and does not address
questions about cancer or other heath issues"_

~~~
zzzeek
Emphasis on "might". It's a hypothetical component of a mechanism, that's all.
It proves that the tiny emissions from a phone do have a measurable effect, as
opposed to none whatsoever. "the energies involved just don't seem to be
sufficient to actually do anything bad." This statement cannot be confirmed -
the energies are sufficient to do..."something". Whether it's bad or not,
unknown.

~~~
zzzeek
and for once I'm not crazy !

[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/cellphone-
radiation...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/31/cellphone-radiation-
may-cause-cancer-advisory-panel-says/?src=me&ref=general)

> This year, The Journal of the American Medical Association reported on
> research from the National Institutes of Health, which found that less than
> an hour of cellphone use can speed up brain activity in the area closest to
> the phone antenna. The study was among the first and largest to document
> that the weak radio frequency signals from cellphones have a measurable
> effect on the brain. The research also offers a potential, albeit
> hypothetical, explanation for how low levels of nonionizing radiation could
> cause harm without breaking chemical bonds, possibly by triggering the
> formation of free radicals or an inflammatory response in the brain.

------
atirip
Ok, everybody can do the math:

1) What it is: "The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has
classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to
humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of
brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use."

2) What's the risk: "Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and most
aggressive malignant primary brain tumor in humans, involving glial cells and
accounting for 52% of all parenchymal brain tumor cases and 20% of all
intracranial tumors. Despite being the most prevalent form of primary brain
tumor, GBMs occur in only 2–3 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and North
America."

3) How much the risk increases: "The Working Group did not quantitate the
risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed
a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users
(reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period)."

Anybody worried? Really?

------
ejs
Ehh dont worry about "Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic to humans" when there
is already a list "Group 1 - The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans"

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogen...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_1_carcinogens)

Example: "Alcoholic beverages"

------
packetlss
Press release: <http://com.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf>
(PDF)

Site very slow at the moment, mirror:
<http://www.scribd.com/doc/56731822/pr208-E>

~~~
rl41
Thanks for this, much more informative.

------
corin_
This has reminded me of the great "kill or cure" site based on articles
published by the Daily Mail (a shitty UK newspaper), <http://kill-or-
cure.heroku.com/>

On a less humerous note, as a child (around a decade ago) I wasn't allowed a
mobile for a few years of wanting one for fear that it could cause cancer,
specially when around a still-developing brain (mine). I suspect it will be a
long time before anything is confirmed either way.

------
tptacek
Skeptical take from last year:

[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.html)

~~~
neuroelectronic
Wow, they were skeptical of a report before it even came out. Those skeptics
must also be psychics!

------
justinph
Where can I buy a lead iPhone case? Crap, lead is on the list too!

------
codenerdz
"When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data
transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8 inch)
away from the body."

Thats nearly impossible with data pushes being sent at indefinite intervals :(
So much for keeping the phone in the front jeans pockets..

------
fleitz
This is the way I look at it, there is a major source of ionizing radiation in
the sky, known to cause cancer, it's powerful enough of a source that it can
make your face feel hot, yet other than the heat of the battery my face has
never gotten hot from a cell phone, so before I stop using my cell phone I'd
stop going outside. I'd bet that the heat from the battery is actually more
dangerous than the transmitter.

That radiation source, it's call the sun and outputs about 100W / sq meter in
the visible / UV spectrum of which UV is ionizing. To compare a cell phone
outputs about 500 milliwatts, or about 3 orders of magnitude difference in
output.

The fact that you can charge your cell phone with a small solar cell is all
you need to know about the differences in radiation.

~~~
ars
Different frequencies of light have quite different effect.

Visible and UV light don't penetrate skin. Microwaves do.

~~~
wcoenen
Visible light definitely does penetrate the skin. A typical light bulb shines
through your fingers, making the veins visible:
<http://www.flickr.com/photos/exquisitur/2699850137/>

~~~
ars
All light does penetrate to some degree. Some photons of light will penetrate
steel if your source is bright enough. But it's a question of how much.

------
davecap1
Good thing kids (and many non-kids) these days text instead of talking on
their phones. Any idea if the radiation is decreased when holding the phone in
your hand while there is no voice data going in/out? I would assume it is...

~~~
jff
Ah, but they hide the phones under their desks, so the teacher can't see them.
Hide the phones in their laps. We're breeding a generation of Luddites by
allowing phone-using kids to sterilize themselves :)

~~~
squasher
Teachers <i>always</i> know. They just sometimes choose not to fight that
battle.

------
Create
Actually some worries are not about DNA damage/cancer, but mostly about
demyelinisation due to the simmer cooking of the brain. Last time I checked,
there still wasn't any serious public research on the topic.

