Author Topic: cell phone research article in the LA Times  (Read 2775 times)

kathy g

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
    • Getting great radio heard
cell phone research article in the LA Times
« on: February 23, 2010, 12:52:45 pm »
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ketcham23-2010feb23,0,2567529.story

...We love our digital gadgets -- "magic" devices that define cool and promise to remake our lives for the better. But there is growing evidence of a dark side to the techno-magic. Your cellphone, and any other wireless device that depends on electromagnetic (EM) microwave radiation to function, may be hazardous to your health.

Most of the bad news comes from major labs and research institutions in Europe. What they're reporting is that using cellphones and Wi-Fi transmitters -- which operate using similar frequencies -- can have biological effects on the brain and body.

The scientific debate remains heated and far from resolved, as the Health section in The Times reported last week. But the research to date suggests a number of chilling possibilities as to what EM radiation may be doing to us.

For example, in 2008, neuroscientists at Swinburne University of Technology in Australia strapped Nokia phones to subjects' heads, then turned the phones on and off. On -- the brain's alpha waves spiked. Off -- the brain settled. The researchers speculated that the effect was the result of the brain "concentrating to overcome the electrical interference in brain circuits caused by the pulsed microwave radiation."

Swedish neuro-oncologist Leif Salford, chairman of the department of neurosurgery at Lund University, has found that cellphone radiation kills brain cells in rats, especially those cells associated with memory and learning. The damage occurred after an exposure of just two hours. In duplicating earlier research, Salford also found that cellphone microwaves produce holes in the barrier between the circulatory system and the brain in rats. One potential outcome, according to Salford, is dementia.

Meanwhile, Austrian researchers reported in 2004 that cellphone radiation can induce double-strand breaks in DNA, one of the undisputed causes of cancer.

So why isn't this a bigger issue in the U.S.? Partly because there are countervailing studies and other scientists telling us not to be worried, that the risks are low or that we just don't know enough to say that the risks are real.

Consider the biggest study being done on the question of whether cellphones cause cancers of the brain, mouth and ear -- the 13-country Interphone study conducted under the auspices of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France. The study's epidemiologists have looked at cancer patients and worked backward to establish cellphone habits.

The study, alas, has been fraught with controversy. The multinational researchers -- U.S. scientists conspicuously not among them -- have fallen into warring camps, and the full study has not been released.

However, pieces of the study have been made public. One Interphone study, for example, found that after a decade of cellphone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor goes up as much as 40% for adults. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300% increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve. But still other Interphone researchers say their data show no increase in brain tumors -- or any tumor -- caused by cellphone use.

The cellphone industry lobby, CTIA -- the Wireless Assn., recently said in a statement that "peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk." Meanwhile, watchdog groups keep it vague. "The available science," says the Food and Drug Administration, "does not allow us to conclude that mobile phones are absolutely safe, or that they are unsafe."

So whom to believe, and what to do? ...

November 2010- 10 x 7 x 8 mm
May 2009- 28 x 26 x 17 mm
GK  May 2009 Washington Hospital, Fremont, CA

Jim Scott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7241
  • 1943-2020 Please keep Jim's family in your hearts
Re: cell phone research article in the LA Times
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2010, 01:47:49 pm »
Kathy ~

As you might have guessed, this issue has been kicked around many times on these forums with mixed results and, obviously, no real conclusions.  One camp believes that prolonged cell phone usage is a likely cause of brain cancer and are just waiting for the scientific studies to validate their opinion.  The other camp is highly skeptical of that premise and waiting for the scientific studies to validate their opinion.  In the interest of full disclosure - I'm in the latter camp.  I won't bore you and anyone reading this with all the arguments pro and con but I admit to being a tad cynical about modern inventions being targeted as a 'cause' of cancer.  I suspect that when the telephone became widely available in the early part of the twentieth century, some folks were probably convinced that it caused deafness - or something, and that the Bell corporation was 'hiding' the fact by buying off scientists who could 'prove' it.  Not so, as it turns out.   

While I'm admittedly skeptical of corporations and readily acknowledge their penchant for hiding any negative scientific evidence against their product that would hurt their bottom line - i.e. the U.S. tobacco company's long-running denial of the many profoundly negative effects of cigarette smoking, including lung cancer, the link between asbestos exposure and lung cancer, automobile companies refusing to incorporate safety measures such as seat belts until forced to by public demand backed by government regulation  - I also frown on the kind of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories some anti-cell phone folks have engaged in. Disclaimer: to the best of my recollection, not on these forums. 

I just don't see how very low-level radio frequency waves can have this deleterious effect on brain tissue, although I know some 'studies' will make that claim.  My radiation oncologist said that he read the studies and didn't see any link between cell phone use and brain cancer - or acoustic neuromas.  I expect this debate will go on for a long time until or unless some verifiable and untainted scientific analysis can prove it right or wrong to a scientific and medical certainty.  I use my cell phone very little and never owned a cell phone prior to my AN diagnosis so I see absolutely no connection in my specific case.  However, anecdotal evidence is not scientifically or legally valid so the question will remain open and subject to debate for the foreseeable future.

That noted, thanks for posting the L.A. Times article and refreshing the debate.  It's certainly worth discussing, even if we cannot reach a consensus or agreement, here.

Jim
4.5 cm AN diagnosed 5/06.  Retrosigmoid surgery 6/06.  Follow-up FSR completed 10/06.  Tumor shrinkage & necrosis noted on last MRI.  Life is good. 

Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is.  The way we cope with it is what makes the difference.

leapyrtwins

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10826
  • I am a success story!
Re: cell phone research article in the LA Times
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2010, 06:07:58 pm »
This is an age old debate; many posts about it on the Forum.

There has been no conclusive proof that cell phones cause ANs.

In my case, I didn't even start to use a cell phone until approximately 2 years prior to my diagnosis.  Since ANs are very slow growing, it's pretty unlikely that these 2 years caused my AN.

I'm hopeful one day that those in the medical community who treat ANs will weigh in on this.  It would be nice to get their opinion on this once and for all.

Jan
Retrosig 5/31/07 Drs. Battista & Kazan (Hinsdale, Illinois)
Left AN 3.0 cm (1.5 cm @ diagnosis 6 wks prior) SSD. BAHA implant 3/4/08 (Dr. Battista) Divino 6/4/08  BP100 4/2010 BAHA 5 8/2015

I don't actually "make" trouble..just kind of attract it, fine tune it, and apply it in new and exciting ways

sgerrard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
Re: cell phone research article in the LA Times
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2010, 08:54:42 pm »
It is all about the numbers. You can easily reduce your chance of dying in a car accident by a huge margin: simply never drive or ride in a car again. Ever. Now why don't we all do that?

The chance of getting an acoustic neuroma is very small, and it remains very small even if you use a cell phone and the worst reports are right. (A 300% percent increase would make it 4 out of 100,000). Even if the chance does go up, it doesn't go up enough to make giving up cell phones worth while. It is impractical to ask 1 million people to give up their cell phones to prevent 20 cases of acoustic neuroma. It would make more sense to ask them to stop driving and riding in cars.

Steve
8 mm left AN June 2007,  CK at Stanford Sept 2007.
Hearing lasted a while, but left side is deaf now.
Right side is weak too. Life is quiet.

rupert

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 366
Re: cell phone research article in the LA Times
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2010, 09:34:52 pm »

  I have had my cell phone for about ten years.   I don't use it.     The most I have used it was probably five minutes in a month.   I see no correlation  between that and my AN.     I think most of the worlds populace now use cell phones constantly.    You would see huge increases in AN cases.    IMO  these are just scientists who insist on scaring the public about microwaves,    global warming,   and along with some doctors ,   radiation.

                                                                                                                                  Bryan

4cm in Pacific Northwest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: cell phone research article in the LA Times
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2010, 11:35:17 pm »
Great article!

I think there IS a connection (Steve and Scotty I STILL love you  :-* even though we do not always agree... it keeps our friendship spicy  ;) ) ... My symptom issues were at a peak when I was using an analogue cell phone in the late 90’s early 2000’s. There are different degrees of radiation and that one had a higher "emitance"  :-\ than the cell phones of today.

I have read all the articles and Cell phone related threads here…and even laughed  :D at Joef's wild fishing stories…Regardless what I love about the USA is free speech. I am still having the mind set that there IS a connection to electronics and our brain boogers. In my youth I would fall to sleep with my ear (the AN tuma one) on my portable AM radio. So was the concentrated sound aggravating the acoustic nerve or in fact something emitted from the electronic devices?

I am a heavy laptop user… and wonder some days when it gets warm sitting on my lap “what” am I exposing myself to.  ???

I only use a head set with my cell phone now as I have only one ear left and don’t want to take ANY chances (being that we still do no know “the cause” of AN tumors)… My husband (electrical engineer) wears a blue tooth in his ear (I think just to bug his wife and be defiant of my cell phone use concerns  ::) )

When it comes to our kids… well my 11-year-old listens to me and is not a cell-in-the-ear tween. However my teenager is naturally going to do the opposite  ::) of whatever her mother tells her to do … and wears the cell in her pocket (Yes teen girls with tight skinny jeans and a cell visible in the front pocket is apparently hip and cool  8) ;) )… when she is not texting or walking around with it glued to her ear. ::)  (Won’t even start on texting at the table!!!  >:( ) Hmm maybe we should highlight this quote from the article for the cool teen boys. ;) 8) :D

“Don't carry it in your pocket for hours on end(there's some evidence cellphones aren't good for your sperm count).” ...

Yup it is a well-debated topic. Regardless I am REALLY glad you shared the article with us and I have book marked it … and of course sent the link to my husband who will come up with some high tech GEEKland (BTW GEEK is a nice acronym for Good Electrical Engineering Keener) rebuttal to which I will put my finger in my last hearing ear to. So yes the cell phone debate goes on in my own home too.

Again thanks for sharing the article.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ketcham23-2010feb23,0,2567529.story
So whom to believe, and what to do? ...

You think you are confused  ???… Can you imagine my poor kids who listen to their two parents disagree over this cell topic- daily?

DHM
4cm Left, 08/22/07 R/S 11+ hr surgery Stanford U, Dr. Robert Jackler, Dr. Griffith Harsh, Canadian fellow Assist. Dr. Sumit Agrawal. SSD, 3/6 on HB facial scale, stick-on-eyeweight worked, 95% eye function@ 6 months. In neuromuscular facial retraining. Balance regained! Recent MRI -tumor receded!

Pooter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1291
  • The Official Breeze Conjurer - PBW
    • Blog Website
Re: cell phone research article in the LA Times
« Reply #6 on: February 24, 2010, 06:00:21 pm »
I'm sorry, but there are too many cases where someone got diagnosed with an AN LONG before cell phones or were diagnosed with an AN and told that they had it growing in there likely many years before cell phones.  Kaybo comes to mind.  Frankly, my own case comes to mind.. I was diagnosed with an AN and was told that likely it had been there growing anywhere from 15-30 years... LONG before I ever even knew what a cell phone was.

Personally, I don't see ANY connection between the starting of an AN growing and cell phones... I can see an argument being made for the POSSIBLE exacerbation of an AN with the use of a cell phone, but not in helping one get started.  In my mind, even that's a stretch because the incidence of AN diagnoses hasn't taken a similar hike as cell phone use and you would expect there to be one if cell phones were the culprit.

In my mind, it's kinda like global warming...  if "we" are causing the problem, then explain the many ice ages over hundreds of millions of years when man wasn't even here, let alone green-house causing things like SUV's, aerosol cans, etc..  The two can't be reconciled in my mind. 

Regards,
Brian
Diagnosed 4/10/08 - 3cm Right AN
12hr retrosig 5/8/08 w/Drs Vrabec and Trask in Houston, Tx
Some facial paralysis post-op but most movement is back, some tinitus.  SSD on right.
Story documented here:  http://briansbrainbooger.blogspot.com/

"I must be having fun all wrong!"  - Roger Creager

dufreyne

  • New Member
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: cell phone research article in the LA Times
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2010, 01:28:38 am »
This subject is very difficult.  Certain facts are known:
1.  Cell phone radiation in close proximity do, in fact, cause DNA breaks
2.  Animal models (with shorter lifespans) have shown they do develop all three types of cancer with enough exposure to cell phone type radiation.
3.  Long term studies (>10 years) show a 3 to 4 fold increase in Acoustic Neuroma incidence and a possible  increase in both Glioblastoma and Parotid Gland Carcinoma.
4.  Incidence of AN still remains very, very low.  With any disease that has a low incidence,  associating cause and effect is very, very difficult. 
5.  There are very few 'disinterested parties' here.  On the one hand we have scientists who seem hell bent on proving there is a connection between cell phone use and tumors.  On the other hand, we have the cell phone industry which is, needless to say, a gigantic money machine.  I find their recent comments regarding safety laughable.  Whenever someone draws that type of definitive conclusion based on the known body of evidence, be wary, be very wary.  These types of individuals are generally the most dangerous--ill informed and hard headed.

So, it remains difficult to conclude that 'A causes B'.  Given the competing parties, we may never know in our lifetimes.  I would say, do what makes sense.  Use speakerphone when able.  Use headset when able.  If you must speak without either, be moderate in terms of talk times.  Also, be healthy--eat right, exercise, learn to manage stress well and enjoy all the great things that life has to offer!
D--

Jim Scott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7241
  • 1943-2020 Please keep Jim's family in your hearts
Re: cell phone research article in the LA Times
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2010, 02:59:59 pm »
Dufreyne ~

Thanks for your logical analysis of the cell phone/AN debate.  Your closing advice is well taken, i.e. 'do what makes sense' and 'be healthy'.

Jim
4.5 cm AN diagnosed 5/06.  Retrosigmoid surgery 6/06.  Follow-up FSR completed 10/06.  Tumor shrinkage & necrosis noted on last MRI.  Life is good. 

Life is not the way it's supposed to be. It's the way it is.  The way we cope with it is what makes the difference.