Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 163 posts

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#21

Post by joshvm »

carlesfe wrote: post #20
joshvm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mother Jones posted this link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f... Key points: - The rats were exposed in utero and throughout their lifetimes - They did pilot studies to find what radiation level did not cause a body temperature rise to remove that as a confusing factor - 900MHz CDMA and GSM signals - SAR of 0, 1.5, 3, 6 W/kg. For comparison the FCC limit is 1.2 W/kg in 1 gram of tissue.…

Thanks for the summary, I just read the article and I feel like you touched the main points. Regarding survival, I also noticed it, surprising. Could you define "survival rate" for someone who's not in the field? Does it mean what it looks like it means, i.e., survival rate is higher when rats die at an older age in average?

Not a medic or biologist (or a statistician!) so I don't know the specific definition, but I assumed it simply means the number of rats still alive at the end of the 106 week period.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#22

Post by [deleted] »

LionessLover wrote: post #19
mcpherrinm wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paper is linked at the beginning of the article. Abstract: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/05/26/055699 Direct PDF link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f...

The problem with linking to websites like this is that one has to be logged int o see anything but the first line of the article...

[deleted]

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#24

Post by lucaspiller »

Ok this is the first study that says there is a link, but let's assume for a moment that what it says is correct and it has the same effect in humans: Would the same also be true for wifi?

According to Wikipedia the average cell phone TX power is 500 mW vs 200 mW for 802.11n [0]. Cell phones usually operate at lower frequency than wifi, however wifi (at 2.4Ghz) is at the same frequency as microwave ovens.

In the study the rats were exposed for 10 minutes on - 10 minutes off for 18 hours a day (at an unknown TX power), if you work in an office you are going to be exposed continuously (apart from coffee / lunch) for 9+ hours a day, and even more if you then go home and use a wifi device.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DBm

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#26

Post by miles »

lucaspiller wrote: post #24

Ok this is the first study that says there is a link, but let's assume for a moment that what it says is correct and it has the same effect in humans: Would the same also be true for wifi? According to Wikipedia the average cell phone TX power is 500 mW vs 200 mW for 802.11n [0]. Cell phones usually operate at lower frequency than wifi, however wifi (at 2.4Ghz) is at the same frequency as microwave ovens. In the stud…

> this is the first study that says there is a link

From 2011:

WHO: Cell phone use can increase possible cancer risk [1]

"Radiation from cell phones can possibly cause cancer, according to the World Health Organization. The agency now lists mobile phone use in the same 'carcinogenic hazard' category as lead, engine exhaust and chloroform.

"Before its announcement Tuesday, WHO had assured consumers that no adverse health effects had been established.

"A team of 31 scientists from 14 countries, including the United States, made the decision after reviewing peer-reviewed studies on cell phone safety. The team found enough evidence to categorize personal exposure as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans.'"

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/05/31/who.cell.phones/

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#27

Post by TeMPOraL »

joshvm wrote: post #17
djmdjm wrote: post #6

Does anyone have a link to the actual paper? As usual, it's impossible to get any useful information from a sensational mainstream science article. The article states that they studied rats and mice at 9 hrs/day exposure (at what RF power?) but aren't reporting results for mice at this stage. Of the rats (how many?), they found the "cancer association appeared in male rats" but no effect size or confidence interval i…

Mother Jones posted this link: http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055699.f... Key points: - The rats were exposed in utero and throughout their lifetimes - They did pilot studies to find what radiation level did not cause a body temperature rise to remove that as a confusing factor - 900MHz CDMA and GSM signals - SAR of 0, 1.5, 3, 6 W/kg. For comparison the FCC limit is 1.2 W/kg in 1 gram of tissue.…

> At the end of the 2-year study, survival was lower in the control group of males than in all groups of male rats exposed to GSM-modulated RFR. Survival was also slightly lower in control females than in females exposed to 1.5 or 6 W/kg GSM-modulated RFR. In rats exposed to CDMA-modulated RFR, survival was higher in all groups of exposed males and in the 6 W/kg females compared to controls.

Part of me wants to spam every genpop I know now with this link and the phrase: "scientists prove cellphone radiation makes you live longer!".

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#28

Post by aortega »

Keyframe wrote: post #25

I'm too much of an idiot here. What frequencies, range, power? How about other ubiquitous signals like Wi-Fi?

Wifi exposure using a computer should be hundreds of times lower than a cellphone that is emitting radio at full power next to your head.

If you are talking about Wifi in your phone, its' basically the same effect/power as GSM/CDMA.

Re: Cellphone-Cancer Link Found in Government Study

#30

Post by icebraining »

lucaspiller wrote: post #24

Ok this is the first study that says there is a link, but let's assume for a moment that what it says is correct and it has the same effect in humans: Would the same also be true for wifi? According to Wikipedia the average cell phone TX power is 500 mW vs 200 mW for 802.11n [0]. Cell phones usually operate at lower frequency than wifi, however wifi (at 2.4Ghz) is at the same frequency as microwave ovens. In the stud…

Power of transmission is only one part; another is distance to the source, since AFAIR the power drops off at a rate inversely proportional to the square of the distance. Being exposed to a router at a few meters, and even to a computer at a meter or so, is probably significantly different from having your phone touching your head or in your pocket.
Post reply on HN