Another new studies that could not find any link between prolonged cell phone usage and brain tumors.
Y'know, people can make many speculative arguments back and forth on the issue of cell phone use and brain cancer. The FACT that we have right now are:
1. no established and clear link between cell phone and cancer, and
2. no physical mechanism for cell phone signals to cause cancer.
These are what we have currently. While people certainly are free to exercise caution if they want to, one should not confuse personal preferences and speculation with hard, valid evidence.
I'm more worried about drivers who use their cellphones while driving than I am about the cellphones causing cancers. If people are SO worried about their safety, why aren't they up-in-arms about that? There are enough documented evidence of accidents (including fatal accidents) that were direct results of using cell phones while driving. Instead, we get MORE publicity out of something that hasn't even been well-established, AND people who seem to already believe in them.
Makes no sense....
Zz.
7 comments:
Well, I have to say that either way I am still afraid of cellphones, but I've being like that ever since they were made. Sure, it's just personal care. Or should I say paranoia?
Now, concerning human health, that post made me think about all the bad things I heard about aspartame. Do you have an opinion about that? Does it kill neurons or that's just like cellphones causing cancer?
ZapperZ, I've being reading your blog for two days now, and I loved your way to express without tolerating unfunded speculations and always showing the facts rather than talking about what most people would find fun or just imposing your own opinions.
Even when it comes to physics, that's hard to see, congratulations!
Oh Zapper, this time I am baffled by your post.
While it is true that no establish and clear link exists between cancer and cellphone use, there is a clear physical mechanism for cancer causing. It is well known that radiation can cause cancer. The issue still under debate is whether cellphone signals are whether the brain is affected by the particular radiation that cellphones emit and whether that radiation type is strong enough to cause cell damage that leads to cancer.
As far as accidents while talking on cellphones, maybe the reason why not everyone is up in arms about that is that many states/cities have laws against driving while talking/texting. Maybe they haven't been enforced as much as they should, but at least in many cases that's more than you can say about cellphones causing cancer laws.
Oh El Charro, I am baffled by your comment.
There is a difference between ionizing radiation and NON-IONIZING radiation! Cellphone signals are non-ionizing radiation because, as Einstein pointed out in the photoelectric effect, there is a MINIMUM ENERGY that is needed to cause something to happen! For a cancer to occur, you need to cause bonds to break, or atoms in a cell to ionize! Cellphones have signals with energies that are ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE TOO SMALL to cause any of those!
Now, are you still baffled and still claim that there is a "clear physical mechanism" for causing cancer her?
BTW, if you have followed Bob Park's "What's New" (see my list of links), you wouldn't have been so baffled!
Zz.
For a cancer to occur, you need to cause bonds to break, or atoms in a cell to ionize!
Sure, but that's not the whole story. You're likely talking about DNA damage, which is believe to be the reason why cancer can begin. And this initial damage will come from whatever ionizing source you like. But, even when the DNA damage occurs, it doesn't necessarily mean that the body will develop a tumor. The body could "self-regulate" (for lack of a better word) and kill the damaged cells with no serious consequences.
However, several studies have found that oxidative stress might be a promoter of tumor growth. There are certain proteins (kinases) that are can go out of whack by exposure to frequencies right in the range of cellphone signals. These kinases going out of whack would lead to oxidative stress, which in turn would lead to tumor growth, which then leads to full-blown cancer, etc, etc, etc.
There still needs to be shown that indeed, cellphone's radiation is enough to induce significantly effects on kinases, and whether these kinases can affect brain cells in the way that the damage leads to cancer. But, with potential pathways to cancer that involve exposure to the particular type of radiation involved in cellphone communications with the added proximity to the head when in use, it's worth it to explore it more.
El Charro, I'm sure you know that the statistics must come first and foremost. If there's no important probabilistic correlation between phones and disease, then there is no phenomenon to be explained. Whether kinases or any other candidate can potentially cause cancer is then an independent question.
Pi-Guy,
I'm sure you know that the statistics must come first and foremost.
Yes, but that only comes first and foremost when you're making the final statement as to whether something is true or not. I am sure you know that you first need to gather enough statistics. You can put to rest the claim that cellphone signals can ionize cells and lead to cancer, but you cannot, and you should not, make the claim that they don't "cause" cancer if there is a scientifically accepted mechanism in which it could happen. There might not be enough statistics yet to make the claim that kinases "excited" by cellphone signals lead to cancer. But it has been significantly documented that kinases respond to signals in the range of those used by cellphones, and there has been, at least, some correlation between kinases going out of whack by wireless signals, oxidative stress and tumor growth promotion.
Brain cancers are not even that frequent to begin with, and there are many environmental issues that are hard, if not impossible, to account for. That's why it's a tricky area.
If there's no important probabilistic correlation between phones and disease, then there is no phenomenon to be explained.
Probabilistic correlation is irrelevant to whether or not there is physically valid a phenomenon that can have a certain effect. The important thing is whether the physics, chemistry and biology, when working all together, leads to a potential mechanism that causes that effect. If the possibility exists, then you carry out the research, gather statistics, and show whether the mechanism is indeed responsible for the effect or not. You do not make a definite statement before you do all that.
I mentioned one potential way in which cellphones, while not responsible for the nucleation of a tumor, can lead to proliferation of that tumor. Maybe cellphones signals are not strong enough to cause significant misbehavior of kinases, we just don't know that for sure yet.
It certainly doesn't mean that because of the lack of data, it should be discarded as true. If that was the case, areas like String Theory would not ever get funded.
El Charro said,
"Probabilistic correlation is irrelevant to whether or not there is physically valid a phenomenon that can have a certain effect. The important thing is whether the physics, chemistry and biology, when working all together, leads to a potential mechanism that causes that effect."
I don't think you took to heart what I also said:
"Whether kinases or any other candidate can potentially cause cancer is then an independent question."
Fact is that without correlation, there is no phenomenon to be explain, or to be afraid of. One person coming down with brain cancer and also happened to talk a lot on a phone is only a significant correlation to close relatives who need to place blame. With nothing more than that to go on, it's just superstition. You can say that we don't have enough fair data to say that phones >aren't< connected with disease. Sure. But you can also says we don't have enough fair data to rule out Russell's Teapot. I'm not going to assume his Teapot exists near Mars just to be on the safe side.
And, string theory isn't a very good example of what you mean to point out. String theory in particular is rooted in an enormity of data which have been in-hand for decades.
Post a Comment