digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Mobile phone use 'linked to tumour'

telegraph.co.uk — «Long-term users of mobile phones are significantly more likely to develop a certain type of brain tumour on the side of the head where they hold their handsets, according to new research.»

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • TheEqualizer1, on 10/12/2007, -36/+2Wear a Bluetooth earpiece or use speakerphone. This is NOT good.
    • Keropipi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29a bluetooth headset still transmits wireless signals through your head.
    • jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9And a lot of people have them on their head CONSTANTLY. Worse than cell phone radiation that's only in effect while you talk.

      Best thing might be earbuds with wires...
    • ezweave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13"This is NOT good."

      No, there is something wrong here. If 39% of those who had used cell phones for ten years had tumors, we would be hearing a good bit more about it. It may be true that out of those in the study that was true, but how big was the study?

      I've used a cell phone since 1998... "oh noes!" Coming up on 10 years!
    • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28Everyone please calm down.

      Cell phones use radio waves, which are physically to big (the wavelength) to mess around with things inside cells
    • TheAkolyte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Are there any repercussions from looking at monitors too much and too long?
    • jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13"Cell phones use radio waves, which are physically to big (the wavelength) to mess around with things inside cells"

      And the scientific proof of this is where?
    • alex189a, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9-TheAkolyte

      Yes, often manifested in unhealthy usage of sarcasm and cynical humor. Wait a sec...
    • macbwizard, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Yes, Cell Phones use microwaves which are lower in energy than visible light. Microwaves are also non-ionizing meaning that they do not change genetic material in any way. People who believe that cell phones cause tumors do not understand the science behind it at all.
    • sorgasm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Although Bluetooth is indeed transmitting wireless signals, the power is MUCH less. Cellphones typically emit a signal of about .5W, while the Bluetooth standard used in headsets is no stronger than .001W = 1mW - several orders of magnitude smaller.

      http://www.ericsson.com/ericsson/corporate_responsibility/health/radiowaves.shtml
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth
    • ggarenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21as long as the tumor can connect through bluetooth and act as an earpiece, i'm all for it.
    • sn00kie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Not to sure what to make of the article... I've heard so many things.....

      My modern physics teacher insisted that the wavelength was to large and radiation was just not enough....

      On the other hand, my last cell phone, LG, had actually written into the user manual that 'this product may cause cancer'. (Not those words but you get the idea)
    • Crass22, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3It seems like some phones will cause speakers to ge static chirps (like in cars or by computers) right before and during a phone conversation. I wonder if phones that cause thoes distortions are more prone to emitting cancer-causing radiation. My little Samsung e315 doesnt make any speaker noises.
    • felchdonkey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3ezweave -

      The article is not saying that 39% of cell phone users have tumors. It says "they were 39 per cent more likely than average" to get the tumor.

      Basically, it means that if you have a 10% chance of getting a brain tumor, on average, then you have a 13.9% chance to get one if you have used a cell phone heavily for ten years.
    • mark_in_bc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Cell phones causing brain tumors has been proven to be ***** many times over. Why won't this urban myth die?
    • docdoak, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Wow they added a "u" to tumor!
    • UnderWurlde, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3DocDoak wrote: Wow they added a "u" to tumor!

      Wow, you must be using American English and not read very much. Tumour, colour, the list goes on. Differences between British and North American English; it's not a spelling mistake, it's just spelled differently, "Doc"...
    • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4>>>"Basically, it means that if you have a 10% chance of getting a brain tumor, on average, then you have a 13.9% chance to get one if you have used a cell phone heavily for ten years."

      Exactly. The article is completely misleading in that respect.

      Think about the chances of getting a brain tumor. They ain't 10%. They ain't even 1%.

      This study just suggests that there may be some form of correlation. It's a *looooong* way from causation.
    • Ghstfce, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This myth has been debunked several times over several years by several reputable scientists and medical professionals. An anti-public cell phone usage crusade pays some quack to come out in public saying "this is bad" and you all believe it. Ever notice that for one of the guys saying it causes cancer there are 10 respectable scientists that disagree and can provide documented proof?
    • mark_in_bc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@docdoak
      If your in England, Canada, Australia, New Zelland, or just about any another English speaking country except for the US tumour is the correct spelling.
  • biznickman, on 10/12/2007, -19/+4Man, I agree. It is time to start using a Bluetooth earpiece again.
  • Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9cellular waves are everywhere, whether or not you are holding a phone. Think of all the electromagnetic waves traveling through you at any given time. TV signals, Radio Signals, Cellular signals......
    • Jolls, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2what's fun about cellular waves is that the frequency used is the same that microwaves use. Or so said one of my teachers back in the day, so I'll assume it's relatively true.
    • jsg7, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Yes, but the real problem is when they are concentrated right by the phone (i.e an inch from your brain).
    • CrimsonBlur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, but using the cell phone is what really makes the difference. The signals coming out of your phone are the ones you really need to be worried about, they are much stronger than the signals you are receiving because they are originating from your phone. The phone creates a single point where all of this radiation (If these findings are true) is accumulating (well it doesn't really work that way but you get the idea). Radio waves just floating around like normal aren't any risk.

      I'm not saying these findings are true, I find it highly unlikely, but if they are true, that would be the concern.
    • richfiddler11, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2yeah, but radiated intensity falls off at 1/(d * d) -- inverse square of the distance. So the closer the signal source is to your head, the intensity goes up drastically.

      There's always good old wired headsets.
    • DigeratiPrime, on 10/12/2007, -8/+52.4 GHz is a resonance frequency of water, it is used by Microwaves, Wireless 802.11g/b, Bluetooth, cellphones and some wireless handsets.
      How do you think a Microwave oven cooks food? By vibrating the water molecules. What percentage of the brain is water? think about it...
    • TheAkolyte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9nothing can penetrate my aluminum cap!
    • Schmerz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DigeratiPrime, only problem with that is a Microwave cooks food at 1000w and a cell phone emits 1w...
    • AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Re: DigeratiPrime
      Further more, microwave ovens can't cause cancer either, even if you cooked your head for years. You would die of over heating just like in a gas or electric oven.
    • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Microwave ovens use 2.4 ghz, as does bluetooth and 802.11.
      Cell phones (GSM) use somewhere between 800-900 Mhz or 1800-1900 Mhz.

      Not the same frequencies at all, although technically they're still "microwaves".
  • diggmeplease, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8If you think that wearing a bluetooth headset is going to keep a tumor from growing, you better check "the googles."
  • mttrvn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Use txt messages
  • affanjam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Steve Jobs: iPhone does not give you brain cancer...only tumors.


    /sarcasm
    • EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17And BOY have we patented it!
    • littleidiot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13what are you talking about??? the iphone can heal tumors!
  • cezar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7When I see the study, I'll believe it.
    • thatsmyaibo, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Pictures or it didn't happen? (be forgiving, that was the first time i used that phrase)
    • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4there was a story on digg a few months ago about pizza causing cancer
    • idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Your mom gave me cancer.
  • Gtitian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8very very very very very hard to believe, considering how dense the EM activity is without cellphones taken into account, we should all be riddled with cancers.
  • pixelmixer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Cell phone use causes tumors. More urban legends, or cold hard facts? You decide... tonight at 11.
  • zephc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8obligitory "It's not a toomah!"
  • L1V3EV1L, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0not too convinced but not surprising. well i guess we will ALL find out sooner out later. just try not to talk on the damn thing 24/7 like most ppl do
  • MrRockabilly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What the hell doesn't give you cancer now a days? Cancer is more hereditary than anything . . .
  • ajchavar, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2or maybe, just maybe, we can use our phones less?

    i love having a cell, but i always limit the amount of time I talk on it, you don't need to have one at your ear all day, especially not with land-line phones, email, text, AIM, etc.

    moderation, people.
    • ymirscorpse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Many of us no longer have landline phones. That said, I don't spend much time talking on ANY phone.
  • richfiddler11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You're probably more likely to die from a car crash due to talking on the cellphone instead of watching where you're driving
  • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4OK... so let's say one day they prove conclusively that cell phones cause brain tumors...

    I bet some people will continue to use them - and will ignore the mandatory Surgeon General's warning label.

    Some people's urge to blather the mundane details of their lives in public will supersede their survival instinct.
  • Nick22, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Jesus christ, everything causes tumors these days
  • Opperior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OK, everyone say it with me:

    "Corrality does not imply causality."

    Keep in mind also that the analog cell phones of 10 years ago used a lot more power the today's digital cell phones.
    • dopplerdog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Neither does correlation."
    • vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Corrality does not imply causalation?
    • TenebrousX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4correct, spending time at the corral does not imply causality
  • Stevethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wasn't there an article here on Digg about a month ago that was debunking that kind of "myth"?
  • laserman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Before separating out long-term users or looking at the different risks of developing tumours on the side where users held the phone, the scientists found no link between mobile use and gliomas."

    THIS IS REPORTING BIAS

    Basically, the people with gliomas are told they are participating in a study about mobile phones and cancer. What do you know? More of them say they used their phone on the side where they have cancer. It is likely don't accurately report their behavior.

    I talk on the phone 2000 minutes/month and couldn't even tell you what side I put my phone on. This is crap.
    • Taciturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dugg for truth.

      Additionally: "The overall results of this study do not show increased brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use." If the overall risk stayed the same, but the risk of developing a tumor on the "phone side" went up, that means the risk of developing one on the other side went down.

      I'm sure in Bizarro World where the goal of the news media isn't to frighten the ***** out of you this story recommends using a phone on the opposite side of your tumor as a holistic remedy.
  • kurophoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The original research (or at least the abstract) can be found here: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114072761/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

    The important part relating to the 10 years of mobile use:
    "For more than 10 years of mobile phone use reported on the side of the head where the tumor was located, an increased OR of borderline statistical significance (OR = 1.39, 95% CI 1.01, 1.92, p trend 0.04) was found, whereas similar use on the opposite side of the head resulted in an OR of 0.98 (95% CI 0.71, 1.37). Although our results overall do not indicate an increased risk of glioma in relation to mobile phone use, the possible risk in the most heavily exposed part of the brain with long-term use needs to be explored further before firm conclusions can be drawn."

    The "of borderline statistical significance" seems to be the important bit
  • phmfthacim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1people are going apes over this, and it's not even conclusive.

    you have MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of electromagnetic waves passing through you ALL THE TIME, it's not a big deal, settle down...
  • DRTED, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Beepers are gonna make a comeback
  • davecor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0... And Steve Jobs will sue the first person to get an iTumor
  • felderado, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You get larger doses of radiation from standing in the sunlight and we aren't walking tumors.

    I call BS.
  • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I have a problem with this. There are 2 types of radiation, ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation, as the name implies, can ionize or pull electrons from the atom. Gamma rays, x-rays, UV are forms of ionizing radiation. There is tons of research that support exposure to ionizing radiation causing cancer. Radio, microwave, visible light are non-ionizing. They can excite the electron (change it's orbit) but not pull the electron from orbit. There is a lot of research on the health effects of non-ionizing radiation and there is non that I am aware of that links this type of energy to cancer.

    I, for one will continue to use both my cell and 5.8 Ghz wireless phones, as well as my wireless network.
  • Krymore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*obligatory comment about our alien shadow government's mind controll signal*
    • crashflow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*obligatory comment reminding people to wear cranial protection made out of thin rolled metal sheet commonly found in household kitchens.
  • Ifligus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why the hell is it that every other study on cell phones finds conflicting results? Not long ago there was a very large study that concluded there were no ill effects from cell phone usage. So what gives?

    Maybe we should all just get some mu-metal and wrap our heads in that. Tin foil is so last century.
    • shillbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"A spokesman for the Mobile Operators Association said: 'The overall results of this study do not show increased brain tumour risk in relation to mobile phone use.'"

      This is simply another exercise in finding correlation, without proving any sort of causation.
  • acr2001, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why are the people saying 'use bluetooth headsets' being dugg down?
    A bluetooth headset emits a FAR FAR weaker signal than your actual cell phone. So much so that its trivial. So YES using a bluetooth headset will cut MOST of the exposure. Go look it up if you don't believe me.
  • reVolut1oN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This post, is for all of you out there who are being convinced by the many imprudent and conflicting studies completed by various institutions linking cell phone use to some degree of cranial detriment. For these researchers who publish the works noting the dangers of cell phone usage connected with brain cancers, or tumors, I say...please, take a basic chemistry course. Wavelength and frequency in the electromagnetic spectrum are inversely proportional, meaning that as frequency increases, wavelength decreases. Basic marking points from least to greatest in the spectrum include, radio wave, radar, microwaves (no, not microwave ovens...), infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays respectively. The studies tie brain cancer/tumors with the type of waves cellular phones emit. Cell phones emit a wave in the range of microwaves, with a frequency around 3 times 10 to the 11th power. Every day we walk, work, and live in the spectrum of visible light which has a frequency of 3 times 10 to the 14th power, higher than the waves cell phones emit. Visible light does not penetrate our skin, and certainly does not penetrate our bones, so certainly a lower frequency cannot. In order for these studies to be correct, microwaves (cell phone waves) would have to penetrate the skull to affect the brain. Bluetooth is also apparently a concern of these studies, yet bluetooth emits a signal and frequency, even lower than the cell phone. Just proven though, (by basic chemistry) was the fact that microwaves cannot penetrate the skin, let alone bones. So therefore this research is inconclusive, unrelated or incorrect.
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Uh, microwaves can penetrate skin and meat - how do you think microwave ovens cook a pork chop?
    • quackbot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Microwaves excite electrons, causing heat, which cooks the food. The microwaves themselves do not 'cook' the food.
    • UnderWurlde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, it doesn't excite electrons (or else the dish/plate itself would get hot!) but close to it: water molecules. And for those of you who are about to say "But, my plate _does_ get hot", it's basically the heated food that transfers its heat to the plate.
    • AnotherBrian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Skin and other materials don't act like a low/high-pass filter. The act like band-reject filters. Lower frequencies can definitely penetrate us. The issue with EM radiation and cancer is energy. Because of the fixed velocity (c), below a certain frequency a photon doesn't have enough energy to strip an electron off an atom, thus ionizing it and causing it to interfering with normal chemical reactions in the body. If an atom that was part of a molecule of DNA was ionized, that could damage the DNA and potentially cause the cell to become cancerous. The only other way would be for a photon to have so much energy that ti could split an atom, but that requires WAY more energy than ionizing. Both of which are FAR above the 2.4GHz range used in cell phones.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation
  • gquaglia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I call ***** on this. Everytime some group claims cell phones cause cancer, another study comes out saying they don't. Kind of reminds me of the alcohol and coffee debate. First its bad, then its good, then its bad again, then its good in moderation. I say ***** it, eat and do whatever you want, these so called "experts" really have no clue anyway.
  • Hegemony, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wasn't there just a study completed a few months ago that took like 15 years that said the exact opposite? I think it was from Belgium or something.
  • quackbot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I guess I'll have to give up my plutonium battery project.. Too bad, I was getting 300,000 years between charges.
  • JesusMindFuck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Two words: SWEET JUSTICE

    To all the fu@kers who have annoyed me with their grating voices and boring conversations while I was trapped in their midst, I'm glad when I said "I hope you die" will finally come true. :)
  • tmach, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1In Soviet Russia, tumors give you cell phones.

    It was one of the kinda cool things about Soviet Russia
  • DeadS0ul, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@jsg7 Best thing might be earbuds with wires...

    while you're phone is in your pocket and exposing l'il jsg7 to cell phone radiation

    nice!
  • spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Aren't there a tonne of studies that completely contradict the findings of this one?

    Must be a tough one to accurately test. I think we'll only really know in another 10-20 years when either people start developing tumors like there's no tomorrow, or wonder what the hell everyone was so worried about
  • lopla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is for real ppl. Look the Mythbuster guys did a double blind study and now Adam has a brain tumor. The entire show is in disarray now just check the Discover channel. Adam is on his 2nd chemo and it's not looking good. Cell phones are not FTW.
  • lopla, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Real studies = yes, they cause tumors
    Studies paid for by a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary of Nokia = no, smoking does not cause cancer -I mean cellphones.
  • gemmakicn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0From my understanding of the theory, the microwave radiation reduces the filtering of the blood brain barrier, and as a result brain-matter affecting substances can get in, including things that could be carcinogenic in the brain while being mostly harmless in the rest of the body..
  • Fush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Very Comprehensive study from Denmark, it was on dig a while ago
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6209960.stm

    Using official danish health and mobile records for over 56000 people since 1982 researches found no correlation between mobile use and tumors/cancers
  • Fush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A large study in Denmark, of some 420,000 people has reported that there is no statistical evidence that mobile phone usage leads to an increase of cancers. Danish ccientists tracked 420,000 Danish cell phone users, including 52,000 who had used mobile phones for an excess of 10 years, and some who started using them 21 years ago.

    The scientists matched mobile phone records to the Danish Cancer Registry, which records every person who gets cancer and reported in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute that there was no noticeable rise in cancer.

    "We found no evidence for an association between tumour risk and cellular telephone use among either short-term or long-term users," said Christoffer Johansen, of the Danish Institute of Cancer Epidemiology, who led the research. "Moreover, the narrow confidence intervals provide evidence that any large association of risk of cancer and cellular telephone use can be excluded."

    The scientists were given access to details of all 723,421 people who had a mobile phone in Denmark between 1982 and 1995. Just over 200,000 corporate customers were removed as the individual person who used the phone could not be identified. A further 100,000 were eliminated because of duplicated addresses or errors, leaving the 420,000 for the study.

    The health of the remaining phone users was tracked until 2002, where a total of 14,249 cases of cancer were recorded. Statistically, for that sample size - they would have expected about 15,000 cases of cancer under normal conditions. The fact that the reported figure did not exceed the expected tally suggests that there is no risk of cancer from using cellphones.

    http://www.cellular-news.com/story/20845.php
  • mtb167, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok. What I haven't seen anyone say yet is this:

    There is a 39% increase of getting this one particular tumour...

    what is the actual chance of getting the tumour.

    The article isn't saying you have a 40% chance. So if there is a .000001% chance of getting it in the first place, do i really care if there is a 39% greater chance of getting it from cell phones?

    Smokers are something liek 5 to 10 times as likely to get lung cancer. Thats a 500 -1000% increase. Those are telling numbers.

    This doesn't mean crap!
  • je12u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"It's NOT a tumor"
  • je12u, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Im in your phonez givin you tumorz
  • mjhiggins256, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who cares about your brain? I'm more concerned about my balls? Any studies on links to testicular cancer if you carry your phone in your pocket?
    • CogitatorX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Supposedly cops who kept their radar guns between their legs, while sitting in their cars, had a higher rate of testicular cancer.
  • ebola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And when are we going to see the "research" funded by Motorola, Qualcomm etc that says cell phone use improves your IQ, gets you hot chicks, makes you beautiful and has strangers handing out $100 dollar bills to you for no reason?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.