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

Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

telegraph.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 185 posts

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#81

Post by ellinokon »

parvenu74 wrote: post #61

I've never been a fan of holding an active transmitter (cell phone) against the side of my head, preferring to use either speakerphone or a corded headset of some type. But I wonder: how much danger does a Bluetooth wireless headset present compared to the phone itself?

My father sought to answer the same questions after he started to fear what transmitters might be doing to him/us. As far as I understand his findings, the "strength" of the signal could potentially be as high with blutooth as with 3G/4G, for use with his devices in his environment. His recommendation is therefore to avoid all transmitters close to your body, and prefer wires at all times.

All anecdotal ofc, and I have not in any way verified the instruments he used for his tests.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#82

Post by icebraining »

perl4ever wrote: post #74
emodendroket wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They probably don't do that making direct contact between their heads and the machine for an hour at a time. Seems like a bad comparison.

It's not clear to me that it's a bad comparison for several reasons. (a) I don't think it's typical to make direct contact with a cell phone for an hour at a time. Most calls I make are short and I don't actually hold it touching my ear. That does depend on the noise level though. (b) Microwaves are much higher power. (c) Microwaves may be constructed to looser tolerances regarding shielding. Yes, microwaves are diff…

Microwaves may be constructed to looser tolerances regarding shielding.

How? A cellphone literally can't shield its radiation, otherwise it wouldn't really work.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#83

Post by perl4ever »

emodendroket wrote: post #77
perl4ever wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that it's a bad comparison for several reasons. (a) I don't think it's typical to make direct contact with a cell phone for an hour at a time. Most calls I make are short and I don't actually hold it touching my ear. That does depend on the noise level though. (b) Microwaves are much higher power. (c) Microwaves may be constructed to looser tolerances regarding shielding. Yes, microwaves are diff…

> I don't think it's typical to make direct contact with a cell phone for an hour at a time. Do you have any family who live more than 30 minutes away?

That's not how I meant it. I don't think it's typical of phone calls; it is certainly common among people who make phone calls.

Also, both qualifications in that sentence are important - not only "an hour at a time", but "direct contact". I have been on long calls at work with a landline/VOIP phone and found my ear hurts after a while with the earpiece resting against my ear. So I know that when my ear does not hurt it is because I have not been holding the phone against it for a long time.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#84

Post by gus_massa »

vibrio wrote: post #68

This finding (fully believing it is at best anecdotal and preliminary at this point) brought TTF "tumor treating fields" therapy to mind. In the last year or so a medical device was approved by the FDA to treat brain tumors (Optune, Novocure Inc) in which the patient uses helmet that introduces alternating electrical field though the area of the tumor ( ie the patient head). It sounds super crazy, but it seems to hav…

How much power did the helmet had? If you put your head inside a microwave oven with a power of 800W for a day it will probably hurt you. You can probably fry the tumor (and all your brain) with 800W. (IANAMD)

A cell phone has only 2-4W, so it's the power is much smaller and the risk is not linear.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#85

Post by yaantc »

parvenu74 wrote: post #61

I've never been a fan of holding an active transmitter (cell phone) against the side of my head, preferring to use either speakerphone or a corded headset of some type. But I wonder: how much danger does a Bluetooth wireless headset present compared to the phone itself?

Bluetooth class 3 is 1 mW peak power, class 2 is 2.5 mW peak power. Those are the most relevant for a headset.

For a cell phone, the peak power for 2G is 2W, while for 4G/LTE it's 200 mW.

Those are peak transmit power. In practice the actual power will be lower for BT. For cellular it depends very much on the frequency band used. For low band the phone will mostly be far from the peak. For high bands the device will mostly be at peak power or close most of the time.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#86

Post by perl4ever »

icebraining wrote: post #82
perl4ever wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not clear to me that it's a bad comparison for several reasons. (a) I don't think it's typical to make direct contact with a cell phone for an hour at a time. Most calls I make are short and I don't actually hold it touching my ear. That does depend on the noise level though. (b) Microwaves are much higher power. (c) Microwaves may be constructed to looser tolerances regarding shielding. Yes, microwaves are diff…

Microwaves may be constructed to looser tolerances regarding shielding. How? A cellphone literally can't shield its radiation, otherwise it wouldn't really work.

I'm not sure how this addresses the above statement. A cellphone must emit radiation to work, but surely it also manages EMI.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#87

Post by chillingeffect »

dbatten wrote: post #16

"They analysed 79,241 malignant brain tumours over 21 years, finding that cases of GBM in England have increased from around 1,250 a year in 1995 to just under 3,000." ~2000 new cases per year in a country with 53 million people? I'll take my chances. I'm fascinated how people obsess over the unproven and ultimately minuscule health risks associated with using a cell phone or drinking a glass of wine or eating chocol…

I don't smoke, I'm at a healthy weight and I exercise. I've got that covered. Why would you call me obsessed if I want to know if my mobile phone is unhealthy?

You're comparing "most people"'s long-term, chosen, known unhealthy habits against a new phenomenon which has less flexibility and more unknowns. It's form a of whataboutism.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#88

Post by bhhaskin »

perl4ever wrote: post #35
Zigurd wrote: post #11

Brain tumors take several years to even decades to develop and become apparent. This rise in tumors detected now could have been caused in the days of analog phones with radios that had vastly higher power output. Or, for that matter, analog cordless phones.

It doesn't make sense to me that we would find a detectable rise on that basis, because in the days of analog phones with high powered radios, it was a very small proportion of the population using them. Here is a picture of a DynaTAC analog cell phone circa 1983: https://s.hswstatic.com/gif/cell-phone-old.jpg I certainly knew what they looked like, before I had my first cell phone, because stockbrokers or lawyers or…

I don't think they mean analog cell phones, but analog cordless phones. Which would be much more in use.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#89

Post by pacaro »

FLUX-YOU wrote: post #76
eli wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You also expect the number of identified cases to increase as we improve detection methods and find tumors earlier.

53 million is also not necessarily a population 100% seeking healthcare either, so if more people are getting access healthcare, more tumors will be found.

While it’s not perfect, it’s a reasonable assumption in the U.K. that everyone has access to healthcare.

TBH it’s a reasonable assumption in every developed country except one.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#90

Post by blowski »

graeme wrote: post #71
pbnjay wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, in a country that grew by approximately 10 Million people in the same span.

Probably got older too - are brain tumours linked with age? If this chart is accurate, 3.5 years older: https://www.statista.com/statistics/275394/median-age-of-the... They really should have looked at rates by a given age.

And were exposed to different types of pollution, stress, and all sorts of stuff.
Post reply on HN