Beware Your Blackberry!
We’ve blogged before about the danger of Blackberry addiction. However, the latest research linking cell phone use with brain cancer risk is much scarier than Blackberry orphans.
We first started worrying about cell phone radiation at the ending of the film Thank You For Smoking. It was easy to dismiss a Hollywood quip, but it’s harder to ignore a news report on an award-winning expert on cancer research:
Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take “immediate steps” to reduce exposure to their radiation.The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.
It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.
The article goes on to cite a dismissal of the doctor’s work by the “Mobile Operators Association.” Given that the MOA’s members include T-Mobile and Vodafone, we’re not exactly reassured.
Is the fear of brain cancer enough to make us stop using our cellphones and Blackberries? Probably not. We know french fries likely cause cancer, but we can’t give those up either. We are warming to the idea of a phone headset, though.
Mobile phones ‘more dangerous than smoking’ [The Independent via Drudge]
(57) 
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
April Fools' gag?
guaranteed april fools...fools
Then why is the source article dated 3/30/08?
If it's a joke, the headline's not funny. Too many people actually believe this nonesense for such a joke to be funny. The physics of this are very well understood - if the cell phone isn't powerful enough to cook your brain (and they ain't even close), it can't harm you - the frequencies/power levels are unable to impact the cells. All correlative implications of a cancer link are either junk science or happenstance.
on March 30?
It is April, Fools!
No gag. The report was on CNN this morning. Doesn't mean the report is correct, just that it exists.
"Then why is the source article dated 3/30/08?"
To make the joke believable, of course...
Kash is beautiful and honest. She would not lie to us.
This is a legit story.
what about bluetooth sets? Would that be "better" in terms of lower radiation? or it just best to go back to the old school wired headset?
To 10:28--
Professor Khurana--a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers--reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. What are your credentials?
This is not a joke. Report has been out for a few days. We are all going to die.
I still communicate via telegraph and Morse Code so i'm definitely safe!!!
Cure for Cancer to 190!
Aren't blackberries safe if you don't use them as cell phone and just keep them in your pocket?
If I carry my cellie in my pocket, does that mean I'm going to get ball cancer?
bluetooth headset = douche-iest accessory ever.
http://www.atlantaillustrated.com/blogs/blog02/dude1.gif
good, maybe now all those partners will croak off and make room for some new promotions
Lance,
I'd be more worried about testicular cancer if you had abnormal amounts of testosterone in your system, beginning about the time you were riding with the junior national team.
You know that guy that can get any girl? I'm him … on crack.
I don't have an M.D. or Law degree. I have a bachelors in kicking ass and taking names.
Anyone that gives any credance to this crackpot deserves to travel back to the stone age. I know most young lawyers would have gone to medical school instead of law school if only they could have understood the science, but even if you don't hae the basic litteracy to judge the strength of these claims, at least apply a little common sense and consider teh liability that would apply to the carriers that dismiss these claims if there were even a shred of evidence supporting these claims.
Just because something is "published" doesn't make it real. Peer-reviewed, independent studies have debunked this story many times over and Lat, you ought to be ashamed of contributing to the luddite fear-mongering (even if this intended as a gag).
Nick--
That an online degree?
If you type more and as a result thereof, call less...Blackberries are safer than cell phones...so only the proletariat will die.
Chuck Norris’ hand is the only hand that can beat a Royal Flush.
who cares about cancer when we have kash?
Khurana graduated with his medical and research degrees from the University of Sydney in 1995, and undertook his surgical internship at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney. In 1996, he was selected to undertake his neurosurgical training and PhD at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. During his nine years at the Mayo, he received his PhD in Biomedical Sciences and the Thoralf Sundt Neurosurgical Research Fellowship, and completed his Mayo neurosurgical residency in 2005 under the tutelage of Dr Fredric Meyer and Dr David Piepgras. In 2006, Dr Khurana received his neurosurgical Fellowship in cerebrovascular and complex tumour surgery from the Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, Arizona, where he worked as a Fellow and Attending Neurosurgeon under Dr Robert Spetzler, a neurosurgical pioneer. Dr Khurana was awarded his Fellowship of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in January 2008.
Doesn't look like a crackpot to me.
11:01 - "and consider teh [sic] liability that would apply to the carriers that dismiss these claims if there were even a shred of evidence supporting these claims."
You mean like the liability that the cigarette companies are dealing with now after years of dismissing the dangers of smoking?
The study results are posted at
http://www.brain-surgery.us/mobilephone.html#meth
The study design is basically a meta-analysis of many previously published
studies, with the goal of combining data to reach a statistically
significant conclusion. This is also its weakness: he is forced to combine
data that is collected differently (retrospective, prospective, various
controls), by multiple different authors, and cannot use suitable controls.
Thus, as he writes (and the Independent does not really mention), at best
this suggests a possible causal link between heavy cell-phone use in the
long-term (> 10 years) and brain tumors. What he calls for is re-analysis
of previous large population studies (which the WHO and others have done,
with negative results on cell phones causing cancer), and a new prospective
study.
Personally, I'm sure having electromagnetic radiation right up against the
head for 3-4 hours/day x 5-7 days/week is not good for neurons. To call
this "more dangerous than smoking" is simply ridiculous, and that's the
problem with how the media reports it. It becomes too easy to deride this
US-trained neurosurgeon (at Mayo and the Barrow) as some crack-pot. It is
interesting research, and suggests that existing efforts to better shield
phones and headsets to release less radiation (cell phones today put out a
fraction of the radiation of phones in the 90's) are a step in the right
direction. I've been trying to use a bluetooth headset more (puts out even
less radiation at much lower power than even the best phone). One funny
thing he comments on is that perhaps we should move back to pager-type
technology, with text messages going back and forth (like a Blackberry, I
suppose). Then the radiation is not next to your head....
yeah, it's next to your balls
this is scary
the cell phone companies are so dumb that they may actually fight this accusation and wind up in mired in mucky litigation later on. why not sieze the bull by the horns and simply have an industry mandate that every cell phone be sold with a wired ear piece attachement......, the mandate would cost little, and it would put the onus on consumers to make their own choice about safety. then people couldn't complain about 'they deceived us' just as they did when sucking billions of dollars unfairly, and to little socially useful effect from the tobacco industry and asbestos industry.
perhaps if there is anything to learn from mass tort litigation is that it must be avoided at all reasonable cost---a cheap ear piece (with wire, not the wireless kind) costs like 20 cents tops to manufacture....
News flash: double the risk of brain cancer still only 0.000000000002% chance of brain cancer.
New Tip:
Jenner and Block to mandate 6 hours of cellphone/Blackberry use per day for all partners.
Newsflash-- MDs are not trained as researchers -- their willingness to put stock in a metaanalysis is a clear indication of this, and as to the tobacco companies -- you have succinctly made my point
has anybody read the little manual they give you with your phone? when i got my samsung (still in law school, no crackberry yet), i flipped through it: the last 6 pages are basically legal disclaimers about cell phone radiation and brain cancer.
It's nice to know that you can get doctors to lie and say anything that you want to. As a physicist, it is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a cellphone to cause brain cancer. The amount of energy in the electromagnetic wave output of a cellphone is so low that it cannot even penetrate the cell membrane, let alone mutate DNA. Perhaps talking causes brain cancer?
"Personally, I'm sure having electromagnetic radiation right up against the head for 3-4 hours/day x 5-7 days/week is not good for neurons. To call this "more dangerous than smoking" is simply ridiculous".
Why is that ridiculous, 11:07? How are you comparing the risks of radiation to your brian cells with the risks of smoking to your lungs?
Do you have any basis to make such a comparison?
And please, when I say "basis" I mean something along the lines of a medical degree or relevant research background. Not the fact that the "Mobile Operators Association" has shaped everyone's first impressions on this issue with their bullshit studies.
On Bluetooth: http://www.radiationtalk.com/info/bluetooth_radiation.php
"Because it emits radio waves, some worry that Bluetooth radiation could cause health problems. People sensitive to the waves sent out by microwaves, cell phones and radio towers often complain of nausea, headaches and other bothersome symptoms associated with their exposure. However, the Bluetooth signal at 1 milliwatt is extremely low, compared to some cell phones, which may emit up to 3 watts. The signal is also transmitted throughout a space and not in a single, powerful beam. Bluetooth radiation is considered far less bothersome than cell phone radiation."
Kash gets bonus points for the TYFS shout out. She knows her audience.
On Bluetooth: http://www.radiationtalk.com/info/bluetooth_radiation.php
"Because it emits radio waves, some worry that Bluetooth radiation could cause health problems. People sensitive to the waves sent out by microwaves, cell phones and radio towers often complain of nausea, headaches and other bothersome symptoms associated with their exposure. However, the Bluetooth signal at 1 milliwatt is extremely low, compared to some cell phones, which may emit up to 3 watts. The signal is also transmitted throughout a space and not in a single, powerful beam. Bluetooth radiation is considered far less bothersome than cell phone radiation."
Gentlemen, practice these words in front of the mirror: Although we are constantly exploring the subject, currently there is no direct evidence that links cell phone usage to brain cancer.
http://www.radiationtalk.com/info/bluetooth_radiation.php
And we are warming to the idea of more Kashmir Hill. Welcome back; your absence caused a near duel yesterday.
No Cure For Kashmir
Hey guys, getting angry and pissy over an online blog raises your blood pressure which can lead to heart attacks and strokes. Keep that in mind!
Patrick,
I have no credentials, but there is an extensive, peer reviewed literature by capable bio-physicists on this subject and the conclusions are clear that there is no mechanism that could allow cell phones to cause brain cancer.
Part of the difference is the difference between medicine and science - most of medicine is purely empirical and lacking in theoretical understanding. So within medicine, a statistical correlation is enough for doctors to sound alarms. Problem is that such correlations can easily exist without causation. In this case, the science is clear - there is no possible causation because the cells cannot be affected by radiation at that frequency and power. So while a surgeon with impeccable cedentials may be concerned about a statistical correlation, cross-checking other experts resolves this case.
11:07 - you can be sure of whatever you want about the safety of your neurons, but they are safe from your cell phone.
Nick, practice this phrase instead: our understanding of the physical world is incompatible with the possibility that cell phones cause brain cancer.
11:38 - the cell phone/brain cancer warnings are there because the courts do a lousy job of assessing/acting on hard science, so it's cya time.
11:01 - I was not trying to make your point; rather I was being sarcastic.
11:01-- "Litteracy" = unintentional humor of the day award.
EM Physics 101 has the best post. First, why would a physicist read this site? Second, when would any real scientist without exhaustive study call something impossible?
Who remembers the ending to the movie Thank You For Smoking... ??
Has anyone started the lawsuits against the cellphone companies for this yet?
12:19 - care to cite to these "extensive" "peer reviewed" studies that show cell phones are incapable of causing cancer?
I thought so. Perhaps you should just direct me to the Mobile Operators Association website for these "studies".
1:07,
Apparently not 10:28/12:19.
HYPO: If the firms require associates to use and constantly carry blackberries, and said associates develop cancer, what claims do they have?
Scientologists don't get cancer.
11:16, are you joking? Every phone does already come with a wired earpiece, for just that reason. I rep a major celltelco and they got tons of advice on this issues. There's not much evidence to suggest that there is any risk and there is a lot to suggest that there is not.