Live data from Hacker News

UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

news.berkeley.edu

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#11
He claims 17 minutes of daily phone use increases brain cancer risk by 60 percent yet brain cancer incidence has been relatively flat for the last thirty years.

https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html

He's either a shyster or a goddamned moron.

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#12
A microwave oven is non-ionizing radiation but you wouldn't want to stick your hand in there. It's in the same 2.4GHz band as WiFi.

I personally know a couple people who went blind from looking at radio sources (one was a wave-guide the other was a radar dish; oops). That's one reason I never watch my food cook in a microwave.

As a kid we used to cook hotdogs using an antenna and transmitter.

So yeah, radio waves can have an effect on you no doubt. As for cancer, well, anything that damages your cells theoretically has a chance at cancer. Whether that risk is higher than normal with common radio sources like cellphones is up for debate but I think it's possible.

Edit: Most Wifi is very weak so at even a small distance unlikely to damage cells. Cellphones can be more powerful and you hold it right up against your body. Does it actually damage cells? I think the jury is still out but again I think it's possible..

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#13

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?

I think the theory is that effects like heating or pulsing might interfere with physical chemistry of biological mechanisms, rather than ionizing atoms directly. But I doubt we'll see these correlations taken seriously unless these interferences can be observed.

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#14
post #8

What about bluetooth headphones?

I remember back in the early days of BT single ear headsets, there used to be a booklet that warned of prolonged use "drying out your eyeball"...

This was on an Ericsson from memory. old unit that hooked around your ear. I think I got it with a T28 great phone for the day.

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#15
post #9

The National Cancer Institute has a whole page debunking this: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... .

I wouldn't call that debunking. It says there are studies underway that take years. Sounds like the jury is still out to me. I think it would be wrong to just assume there are absolutely no risks.

Brain cancer incidence since 1992: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html

Cell phone subscribers since 1997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#/media/File:Mobil...

The article claims cell phone radiation causes brain cancer. So where is it?

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#16

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?

Or even (especially?) light bulbs. Visible light is far more energetic than radio- or microwave radiation.

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#17

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?

I think the theory is that effects like heating or pulsing might interfere with physical chemistry of biological mechanisms, rather than ionizing atoms directly. But I doubt we'll see these correlations taken seriously unless these interferences can be observed.

Yeah: the models I have seen involve either vibrations that either change how the DNA is folded (the epigenetic behavior) or cause direct DNA damage due to some kind of resonance with hydrogen atoms. (That said: all of the papers I have personally seen on this are with high-powered and very high-frequency sources... specifically all terahertz.)

The local heating one always seemed much simpler, particularly as you didn't even need to have the heating come from the antenna, as I remember old cell phones--which you usually kept next to your head while talking (how quaint ;P--also routinely getting hot to the touch just from heat dissipation from the battery. There were tons of other explanations for the effects people found, though (which were stuff like "while we didn't find more brain tumors, if you got one it tended to be on the side you held your phone").

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#18
post #15
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call that debunking. It says there are studies underway that take years. Sounds like the jury is still out to me. I think it would be wrong to just assume there are absolutely no risks.

Brain cancer incidence since 1992: https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/brain.html Cell phone subscribers since 1997: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone#/media/File:Mobil... The article claims cell phone radiation causes brain cancer. So where is it?

[deleted]

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#19

Cell phones emit non-ionizing radiation. How can that possibly cause brain cancer? Shouldn’t we be seeing an epidemic of brain cancer if this were true? Wouldn’t the much stronger sources of radio waves we’re exposed to produce even more cancer? What about WiFi?

During my rather short stint in a synthetic chemistry lab in college, I learned that it was a relatively standard practice for folks to "nuke" their reactions in a microwave in an attempt to speed things up. Certainly, nobody wanted anything to get ionized in these situations... So, to me the idea that biological systems may be able to pick up additional energy from local RF fields, and that this increase could potentially have adverse side effects, does not seem totally implausible.

Re: UC Berkeley: Cellphone radiation is harmful, but few want to believe it

#20
post #9

The National Cancer Institute has a whole page debunking this: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/r... .

I wouldn't call that debunking. It says there are studies underway that take years. Sounds like the jury is still out to me. I think it would be wrong to just assume there are absolutely no risks.

Cellphone use has gone from basically nothing to ubiquitous in the US from ~1995 to 2015, with a particularly steep incline in the middle of that range (2000-2005 is when I'd estimate the biggest increase was). With more or less of a lag depending on how well-developed a country is, this is also true for most of the world--even in poor, underdeveloped countries, cellphone use is pretty damn ubiquitous today.

Were there a major risk of brain cancer from cellphone usage, it would have shown up in actual statistics. Hell, if the risk were as small as an extra one per million chance, we should still be able to find it (note that we're able to observe side effects that rare in the current COVID-19 vaccination drive). While the real world data is an uncontrolled study, the study size is so large that it has enormous statistical power in its own right.

Post reply on HN