What are thoughts on cell phone use being tied to cancer?

I’m not at all surprised. I should probably stop falling asleep with my cell phone in my bra, though.

I rarely talk on my phone, I prefer texting anyhow. If my phone doesn’t kill me, something else certainly will.

I think you have to be living with your head in the sand not to realize that excessive use of cell phones have health hazards. I would be particularily concerned about children having cell phones.

The other thing that should fall in the “no surprise” category is aspartame.

I know someone who died just last week from the kind of brain cancer the cell phone may cause. It was a long, not pleasant experience. If I had a cellphone, which I don’t, I’d use ear buds or hold it a little away from my skull when using it.

They’ve been saying this for years, so it doesn’t seem new to me.

Considering the other things I have done in my life, I place cellphones pretty damn low on the list of health hazards. I have:

- Lived in areas with many motor vehicles
– Lived near high tension lines (another source of electromagnetic (EM) radiation)
– Smoked
– Been born (If you knew my family’s medical history, you’d see how bad that is.)
– Worked in manufacturing for most of my adult life
– Been in the Navy for the part of my adult life that I wasn’t working manufacturing. (Complete with lead paint and asbestos pipe covering.. in the berthing compartment!)

Okay, I could go on ad nauseum about all of the dangerous stuff I have done in my life, and possibly divulge a few things that the statute of limitations hasn’t run out on yet, but I think that it isn’t necessary. Look people, life is dangerous! If you can’t handle that then just die now! Hell, I’ll help you and myself by killing you so I don’t have to listen to you whine!

BTW, if you don’t like that then stop asking honest people for their opinions ;)

Professor Bob Park, University of Maryland, has this opinion:

All cancers are caused by mutant strands of DNA. Electromagnetic radiation can’t create mutant strands of DNA unless the frequency is at or higher than the blue limit of the visible spectrum the near-ultraviolet. The frequency of cell phone radiation is about 1 million times too low.

If you want a more balanced and in-depth discussion of the issue here – which really comes down to scientific method, statistical analysis, and determining the cause of bias – then check out Siddhartha Mukherjee’s explanation on the current state of our knowledge in his recent New York Times article.

—

If that’s too much of a long read for you, then check out this summary of Mukherjee’s article on BoingBoing, which has these nice bullets:

• Rates of cancer types expected to be associated with long-term mobile phone use have declined in America during the rise of cell calling.

• The low incidence of such expected cancers in the general population makes it nearly impossible to conduct prospective longitudinal studies: find a large cohort of people with no disease and follow them for 5, 10, or 20 years to see in which groups normal and abnormal rates occur.

• Retrospective studies that ask people to remember past usage of cell phones are deeply flawed due to recall bias.

• Cellular tests examining DNA after exposure to phone emissions were found in a meta-review of papers and research to have no provable link.

Everything gives you cancer.

I’m not living without my cellphone.

Thanks for asking this question, I was about to.

@robmandu So the stuff you’re quoting is inline with what I’ve grown to believe: the tiny levels on non-ionizing radiation given from cell phones aren’t sufficient to mutate DNA into cancerous cells.

But then why is a reputable organization like WHO, that had previously claimed there was no link, now back pedaling? This is what concerns me at the moment. They appear to have found some statistical significance tying it to brain cancer or something.

I saw a doctor on PBS last night, who was asked if he uses a cell phone, and he said he uses ear buds. He was then quick to mention that the current rate of brain cancer is 6 per 100,000 people annually. Further, he said, if the rate doubled to 12/100,000, it is still not very alarming. Yet he chose to use ear buds anyways.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wireless routers just be equally dangerous, right? Personally, I’m not scared of this.

@cockswain, well, you don’t hold a wireless router up against the side of your head… nor must your router be able to conduct 2-way communication with a cell tower miles away.

On the other hand, at least we’re moving up in terms of frequency… where cell phone signal frequencies are about a million times too low, wireless routers (and cordless phones) are only about 500,000 times too low.

—
If all electromagnetic radio waves are so bad for us, and if we continue to ignore the fact that the frequency is too low power in any case, then we oughtta look into killing FM radio, too. I’ve got a personal FM transmitter for listening to my iPod in vehicles without an auxiliary jack. It’s very powerful for its kind, able to transmit over several hundred feet. Even so, if I set it to broadcast on the same frequency as a local radio station (transmitter over 30 miles away), my receiver will only pickup the radio station. That’s how powerful the FM broadcasts are. An FM tower frequently transmits using 100,000 watts of power and drowns out my personal two AA battery transmitter even though it’s adjacent to the radio.

When you consider that doubling the distance from the transmitter leaves only ¼th the power (falling off exponentially), then those folks who live much closer to the tower are really getting saturated.
—

Full circle: Modern cell towers are not analogous to FM radio towers. They operate at much, much lower power levels, around 0.01 watt per square meter in the immediate vicinity of the tower.

fyi re: Frequencies:
– FM (radio): 87.5 – 108.0 MHz
– 3G (cell phone): 1,850 – 1,990 MHz
– 802.11 (wifi): 2,400 and 5,000 GHz

—

These numbers are US specific. YMMV. Different world regions have standardized at different bands of the available spectrum.

@robmandu You made a typo. Wifi is 2.4/5.0 Ghz; you gave the numbers for MHz.

@jerv… ugh, you’re right. Thx!

I was trying so careful to keep it all on MHz units for easy comparison, too. :-\

Well, that’s why this is puzzling to me. I get the argument about electromagnetic frequencies (including all radio bands), so I don’t get why WHO is saying there is a danger. Putting electromagnetic radiation on par with chloroform and lead paint seems crazy, so I’m guessing they have some logical, intelligent reason for doing a near about face on a slightly controversial topic.

If people are concerned with the increased risk for certain types of cancer (glioma?) due to cell phone use, then I hope they have quit drinking coffee. The risk of cancer caused by coffee consumption is far higher than that of cell phone use.

This is a risk only for “heavy” cell phone users. It is not, in my opinion, a significant risk. This is more publicity stunt than responsible science.

It’s a press release without any data
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/06/is_your_cell_phone_cooking_you.php

@cockswain, in my opinion, “consensus” ≠ “science”. And that’s what we have here… a “Working Group” at WHO that basically got together to share a gut feeling that there might be a causal link, but cannot prove it.

to @wundayatta‘s point, the list of Group 2B carcinogens also includes horribly deforming nasties such as:
– coffee
– gasoline
– pickled vegetables
– talc-based body powders
– magenta dyes

If this is just sensationalized bs again, WHO just lost a chunk of credibility. The media is lame for running dozens of reports on it yesterday without having a scientific advisory committee investigate the source of the claim. It reminds me of a few years ago when the global climate scientists at IPCC got hacked, then their emails were taken out of context and the media (particular right-wing outlets) pounced on it as “proof” global warming was a scam. I read the emails and found they had done nothing wrong. The famous “hide the decline” remark was just about how tree ring data didn’t match actual observed temp readings in the last few decades. I suppose this is just hype and nonsense again.

It doesn’t help that PBS had a doctor on that said he uses ear buds though.

I remember Bill Clinton had an advisor who was always on his cell-phone, who developed a brain tumor. Ever since, I have been convinced of the danger of them.

@filmfann I can see how you would think that, even it it is fallacious thinking. Specifically, Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Celphones are only really dangerous if you’re driving while you’re talking on them.

Agreed.

Fear of cell phone use being tied to cancer is far more serious. Excessive fear damages our well-being. Which in turn weakens our immune system. And a weaker immune system increases the risk of cancer.

External car mount antennas are a wise safety precaution.

@mattbrowne “Excessive fear damages our well-being. Which in turn weakens our immune system. And a weaker immune system increases the risk of cancer.”

Are you saying that you think fear increases the risk of cancer?

@Rarebear – Excessive fear, yes. Conversely, when we increase our well-being and happiness, we boost our immune system. And a stronger immune system decreases the risk of cancer.

@mattbrowne Do you have any evidence that excessive fear causes cancer, and that happiness decreases the risk of cancer? This reminds me a bit of the Kim Tinkham case.

Also, the immune system is in a very carefully balanced state. “Boosting” the immune system leads to autoimmune diseases such as ulcerative colitis and autoimmune hepatitis.

@Rarebear, I seriously doubt that normal levels of non-manic happiness brought about by a person’s decisions and actions – and not induced by drugs or other external agents – can really lead anywhere near to ulcerative colitis and autoimmune hepatitis.

@mattbrowne is simply suggesting that, if you can do something positive to reduce fear/stress in your life, even if it’s not scientifically provable as helpful, then being in a better mood as a result will typically lead to improved health and well being.

@Rarebear – Martin Seligman mentions several studies in his new book

http://www.amazon.com/Flourish-Visionary-Understanding-Happiness-Well-being/dp/1439190755/

which I just read. It’s based on the principle called

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flourishing

I’ve not heard of cases with human behavior boosting our immune system leading to autoimmune diseases. From what I know they are triggered by viruses or bacteria overstimulating the immune system.

@mattbrowne I’m sorry, but that’s not rigorous evidence. Flourishing is from the same vein as The Secret.

Read this
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4227

@Rarebear – Seligman only uses rigorous evidence. Maybe this article is better

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligman

The positive psychology community is growing rapidly. Maybe some of the claims of other psychologists are not properly backed by empirical evidence. So let’s stick to Seligman and his research.

http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu

http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/positivepsychologyresearch.htm

On the wikipedia link, I’m seeing that he’s a self-help author specializing in learned optimism. A text search for the word “cancer” was negative.

Your second link is merely a website to a positive psychology center. Text search for the word “cancer” was negative

Your third link was to a list of positive psychology articles. Text search for the word “cancer” was negative.

You have shown me research on how positive psychology can improve mental outlook. Okay, I’ll buy that. I don’t buy that it decreases cancer risk.

@robmandu That’s exactly my point. @mattbrowne was making the point that positive psychology “boosts the immune system” without providing any evidence. I was making the point that you don’t want to “boost your immune system” because it can lead to autoimmune diseases. I have no problem with having a positive outlook on life, or even that positive psychology can make your more optimistic. I have a HUGE problem with saying that a positive mental attitude will decrease your cancer risk. Kim Tinkham was a woman who was featured on Oprah, and tried to use the power of positive thinking to cure her cancer while eschewing medical therapy. She died.

@Rarebear wrote, “I have a HUGE problem with saying that a positive mental attitude will decrease your cancer risk.”

I might disagree, but that’s fair enough.

But @Rarebear also wrote earlier, ”‘Boosting’ the immune system leads to autoimmune diseases such as ulcerative colitis and autoimmune hepatitis” in response to @mattbrowne‘s statement, ”...when we increase our well-being and happiness, we boost our immune system.”

Well, I have a HUGE problem with that. Where’s your scientific basis citing rigorous evidence that happier people are subject to extreme auto-immune maladies, @Rarebear?

—

Question: is it that the word “boost” has special meaning as a technical term when discussing immunology? Because I think it obvious that @mattbrowne was only using it as the normal and pedestrian layman’s term.

@robmandu You’re missing my point. I don’t think that happier people have boosted immune systems. I’m making the point that you don’t want to boost your immune system.

Answer: Boost is a lay term. But immunology is complex, and when lay people throw around terms like “boost” the immune system frankly they don’t know what they’re talking about. It’s a pseudoscientific term that is used by many vitamin and alternative medicine companies to sell products. The implication of “boost” is that it will make you more resistant to disease. But if you truly boost your immune system you will get sick as I describe.

Again, to be absolutely crystal clear here. I have no problem with positive psychology. I think it’s a good thing. I think it’s better to be optimistic than pessimistic. I like optimistic people better than I like pessimistic people.

My problem is this: “Excessive fear damages our well-being. Which in turn weakens our immune system. And a weaker immune system increases the risk of cancer.”

The implication here is that fear increases your risk of cancer, and that positive thinking decreases your risk of cancer. I asked @mattbrowne to clarify this and he said that this is what he believes. Then I asked him to provide evidence, and he provided links to positive psychology researchers and websites without one mention of cancer risk.

If there is evidence that positive thinking actually decreases cancer risk then fine, no problem. But I haven’t been shown it yet.

@Rarebear, I think you’re splitting hairs unnecessarily. Case in point where you explain “lay people… don’t know what they’re talking about.” Yeah, that’s kind of the definition of “lay” after all.

I reiterate you’re reading @mattbrowne‘s use of the word “boost” as an artificial means to accomplish something outside normal parameters when, in my opinion, he means no such thing. Perhaps if we just substitute the word “improve” instead?

There are so many studies that show reducing stress – fear is a stress – improves overall health including the immune system, I hardly know where to start.

@robmandu Even using the word “improve” is a problem. What are you improving? Think of the immune system like a balance. If you put too much weight on one side, it goes out of balance. Either way is bad.

Your Google search does not impress me. Show me some specific medical trials that show that a positive mental attitude decreases of incidence of cancer (or even better mortality) and I will read them.

@Rarebear, if I take your meaning at face value then, the human immune system cannot be improved on in any way.

But see, I believe @mattbrowne‘s point is to help correct those immune systems that have been stressed and are already “out of balance”... especially those that might be suppressed to some degree because of stress. Reducing stress – i.e. increasing happiness, lessening fear – would be one mechanism by which such immune systems might be brought back into balance (all things being equal and assuming no outside derogatory agents).

I’m terrible at looking up research that can withstand detailed scrutiny from determined Flutherites. Tell you what: how about you point us to a study that shows increasing subjective happiness has the net effect of damaging health?

@robmandu “if I take your meaning at face value then, the human immune system cannot be improved on in any way.” Certainly not by positive thinking.

“stressed and are already “out of balance”... especially those that might be suppressed to some degree because of stress. Reducing stress – i.e. increasing happiness, lessening fear – would be one mechanism by which such immune systems might be brought back into balance” But you see that doesn’t mean anything scientifically. This is the language of alternative medicine practitioners who push their products that have no proven clinical value.

“Tell you what: how about you point us to a study that shows increasing subjective happiness has the net effect of damaging health?” This is a logical fallacy, (probably a straw man argument, although I’d defer to @crisw on this point). That’s not what I’m saying. What I’m saying (I believe for the 3rd time), is that as far as I am aware, there is no evidence that a positive psychological attitude decreases the incidence of cancer. That is what @mattbrowne was saying, and that is what I want to see evidence of.

Not surprised but hardly worried. Probably more cancer caused just by living in a city with its polllution than anything . I think you can easily fail to live by worrying too much about dying and contracting this or that.

Seligman’s new book “Flourish” was published in early 2011. Maybe this is a more useful link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoneuroimmunology#Link_between_stress_and_disease

“Stressors can produce profound health consequences. In one epidemiological study, for example, all-cause mortality increased in the month following a severe stressor – the death of a spouse.

Potential health consequences are broad, but include rates of infection HIV progression and cancer incidence and progression.

Stress is thought to affect immune function through emotional and/or behavioral manifestations such as anxiety, fear, tension, anger and sadness and physiological changes such as heart rate, blood pressure, and sweating. Researchers have suggested that these changes are beneficial if they are of limited duration, but when stress is chronic, the system is unable to maintain equilibrium or homeostasis.”

In the book Seligman mentions that chronic stress can accelerate the growth of cancer cells in the body as well as block the body’s ability to battle the disease. It seems that the long-term stress hormone plays an important role.

To add to @mattbrowne Talk to any Oncologist and part of the treatment plan is to remove as much stress as you can in you life to help your battle with cancer.
There are substantial valid studies out there that have proven that living a peace filled life will add years to your life and your quality of life.

@mattbrowne That’s closer, but still a miss. Seligman may mention that chronic stress can accelerate the growth of cancer cells, etc. but based upon what evidence does he say that? Anybody can write anything in a book.

@blueiiznh If you read this thread you’ll see that I have no problem with the idea that reducing stress can increase quality of life. What I have a problem with is the claim that reducing stress will reduce your risk of cancer (and conversely increasing stress increases your risk of cancer). And I talk to oncologists all the time, by the way.

@Rarebear – Do you acknowledge the possibility that ongoing fear of cancer caused by cell phones is a greater stressor than the electromagnetic waves emitted by cell phones close to human heads? Do you acknowledge that stressors have the potential to reduce the effectiveness of our immune systems?

“Do you acknowledge the possibility that ongoing fear of cancer caused by cell phones is a greater stressor than the electromagnetic waves emitted by cell phones close to human heads?” Do I acknowledge the fear of celphone radiation is probably a greater threat than the celphone radiation itself? Yes.

“Do you acknowledge that stressors have the potential to reduce the effectiveness of our immune systems?” If you mean psychological stressor then no, not without evidence.

@rarebear I was only adding to a comment made by @mattbrowne. I stated nothing about your replies.
We all have cancerous cells in our body. The issue and concern is about how and what can cause them to grow into something concerning.

One thing that’s really great about Fluther is that you get to meet people who challenge your assumptions. I kept mulling over the issue of psychological stressors and the immune system. Kept searching and searching. Lots of contradictory information. Conclusions from scientific studies contradicting each other. So I guess Seligman just stuck with one school of thought. And it’s really worth exploring the other views as well. I found one article from National Cancer Insitute and it makes some very good points (see my summary below).

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/stress

“A direct relationship between psychological stress and the development of cancer has not been scientifically proven. Researchers have suggested that psychological factors may affect cancer progression (increase in tumor size or spread of cancer in the body) in patients who have the disease. The complex relationship between physical and psychological health is not well understood. Stress that is chronic can increase the risk of obesity, heart disease, depression, and various other illnesses. Stress also can lead to unhealthy behaviors, such as overeating, smoking, or abusing drugs or alcohol, that may affect cancer risk. Studies done over the past 30 years that examined the relationship between psychological factors, including stress, and cancer risk have produced conflicting results. Although the results of some studies have indicated a link between various psychological factors and an increased risk of developing cancer, a direct cause-and-effect relationship has not been proven. Some studies have indicated an indirect relationship between stress and certain types of virus-related tumors. Evidence from both animal and human studies suggests that chronic stress weakens a person’s immune system, which in turn may affect the incidence of virus-associated cancers, such as Kaposi sarcoma and some lymphomas. Certain behaviors, such as smoking and using alcohol, and biological factors, such as growing older, becoming overweight, and having a family history of cancer, are common risk factors for cancer. Researchers may have difficulty controlling the presence of these factors in the study group or separating the effects of stress from the effects of these other factors. Studies have indicated that stress can affect tumor growth and spread, but the precise biological mechanisms underlying these effects are not well understood. Scientists have suggested that the effects of stress on the immune system may in turn affect the growth of some tumors.”

So maybe the causal links look something like this:

Excessive prolonged fear causes psychological stress. Which in turn can cause a more risky and unhealthy life style. Which can weaken our immune system, and which can increase the risk of cancer, and which can affect cancer progression.

Let me rephrase your last statement to a way that I can agree with. I still have a problem with the “weaken the immune system” part.

“Excessive prolonged fear causes psychological stress. Which in turn can cause a more risky and unhealthy life style, which can increase risky behaviors such as smoking, which can increase the risk of cancer and may affect cancer progression.”

So what about this part from the article?

“Evidence from both animal and human studies suggests that chronic stress weakens a person’s immune system, which in turn may affect the incidence of virus-associated cancers, such as Kaposi sarcoma and some lymphomas.”

I’ll pull this article: Reiche EM, Nunes SO, Morimoto HK. Stress, depression, the immune system, and cancer. The Lancet Oncology 2004; 5(10):617–625 and get back to you on that.

Okay, I pulled the article. Here are relevent points:
“Stress is associated with increased expression of interleukin 1, interleukin 6, and TNF α released from cells from the macrophage or monocyte lineage, with reduced expression of interleukin 2, interferon γ, and class-II MHC molecules, with down-regulated interleukin 2, and with reduced NK activity. Most organ-related carcinomas are associated with high concentrations of TNF α, which inhibits the activity of tyrosine phosphatase, which in turn results in diminished expression of the class-I MHC antigen on the cell surface, thus permitting malignant cells to escape immune surveillance. Therefore, stress and depression can foster tumour progression by inhibition of the expression of class-I and class-II MHC molecules and by reducing NK activity.”

I pulled that article, and that was basically an opinion piece. So it’s a restatement of an opinion.

“These notions could explain the increased occurrence of lymphatic and haematological malignant diseases, and of melanomas seen in a cohort of 6284 Jewish Israelis who lost an adult son. The incidence of cancer was increased in the parents of accident victims and in war-bereaved parents, compared with that in non-bereaved members of the population. Accident-bereaved parents also had an increased risk of respiratory cancer. Followed up for 20 years, the survival study showed that the risk of death was increased by bereavement if the cancer had been diagnosed before the loss, but not after.[60]”

I didn’t pull this article, but it’s a compelling case-control study.

“After exposure to x-radiation, peripheral blood leucocytes obtained from 28 non-psychotic, non-medicated new psychiatric patients showed greater impairment of DNA repair when compared with 28 age-matched and gender-matched blood-bank controls.”

Only 28 patients, so the power is quite small.

“The relation between stressful life experiences and breast cancer has been the subject of a great deal of research, most of which has been characterised by weak design and contradictory results. A retrospective study[64] did not show any important association between stressful life events and breast cancer. A meta-analysis[65] concluded that the few well-designed studies that have been done did not find evidence of a link. A further observational cohort study[66] also did not confirm that severely stressful life experiences increase the risk of relapse of breast cancer.”

“Conflicting reports on the association between tumour development and psychological stress in both human and animal studies might be explained by the variations in stress chronicity, timing of stress, and types of tumours tested.[31] ”

“Although the published work investigating the involvement of psychosocial factors in cancer cause, progression, or response to treatment is extensive, the most common are studies comparing patients with cancer with those who do not have the disease. These studies could be flawed by the effects of patient’s knowledge of their prognosis. Many of the effects of psychosocial factors are likely to be related to behavioural choices, such as smoking, that are known to affect the risk of cancer. The determination of causal links between psychosocial factors and the incidence of cancer is also obscured by the long delay between the development of malignant disease and the detection of neoplastic disease. Furthermore, the studies have used types and stages of cancer that differ biologically in important ways and therefore could be affected differentially by psychological and immune factors.[68] ”

Okay, I’m willing to give this much. There is a POSSIBLE link between psychological stress and cancer progression. The data are conflicting.

Oh great. Now we’re simply back where we started with the whole WHO press release.

Thanks @Rarebear !

This was a great thread.