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

111–120 of 185 posts

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#111

Post by Spooky23 »

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'm fascinated about casual dismissal of actual problems justified by the fact that other problems exist.

I'm not panicked by this issue, but I think there's something there. I play cards with a bunch of neurosurgeons - every one of them has professional concerns about cellular and bluetooth usage, and 4/6 expressed those concerns to me individually about my AirPods.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#112

Post by Frqy3 »

dghughes wrote: post #101

I'd also be interested to see how many more people just text or IM not talk compared to ten or twenty years ago. If there is a risk from cellphone EM radiation so it must also depend on phone usage and also modern phones emit less EM radiation? For me my main concern is I use my phone as an alarm clock and it's 30cm (1 foot) from my head all night. I also leave it there since it's my main phone so I keep it close to…

The densification of the mobile/cellular network (greater number of cell sites and infill using smaller micro, pico and indoor sites) over the last 20 years also means that devices statistically operate at lower power levels most of the time.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#113

Post by awakeasleep »

carbocation wrote: post #108
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.

> You also expect the number of identified cases to increase as we improve detection methods and find tumors earlier. If this is true (and I think you're likely to be right) then we should see longer survival with GBM thanks to lead-time bias.

It's actually more complicated than that- we'd need to know the survival rate for procedures carried out at different discovery times.

If the cancer is basically inoperable, or if there isn't a big difference in outcome based on time of detection, then there wouldn't be an appreciable change in survival rates

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#114

Post by brudgers »

eli wrote: post #67
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…

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

Going further, I'd expect the number of unidentified/misidentified cases to decrease as information flows more freely alongside the internet's growth since 1995. Today, a doctor can investigate a brain tumor from their phone in ways that were impossible using a top research library in 1995. In particular, the internet is really good at surfacing long tail information, and a rare cancer is by definition out in the long tail. Today, I can go from about zero knowledge about the subject to a remarkable level of awareness the within seconds deciding to add an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glioma The world today is such that I get that awareness increase while I am typing this comment.

The hammer makes me aware of nails.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#115

Post by calebm »

yaantc wrote: post #85
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…

Nice analysis. Just thinking of it intuitively, the cell phone transmitter has to send data several km, whereas the bluetooth only has to transmit a few meters. Couple that with the inverse square law, and a bluetooth headset sounds much lower power.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#116

Post by walterbell »

Spooky23 wrote: post #111
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'm fascinated about casual dismissal of actual problems justified by the fact that other problems exist. I'm not panicked by this issue, but I think there's something there. I play cards with a bunch of neurosurgeons - every one of them has professional concerns about cellular and bluetooth usage, and 4/6 expressed those concerns to me individually about my AirPods.

Wired headphones work well.

Is there risk from holding a transmitting phone in the hand for an hour, or adjacent to one part of body tissue, during an extended call?

How about frequencies, e.g. will 5G alter the risk to local tissue? Is WiFi lower power & risk?

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#118

Post by jackschultz »

Story time, as is often the case when "studies" talk about medical risks.

Couple years ago I started noticing these events, deja vu flashes, tingly right arm from the shoulder all the way down to my fingers, and then the inability to comprehend words for a few minutes. Never issues with coordination, because the first one I remember distinctly was riding a bike. Eventually was told they could be seizures, got an MRI and EEG and poof, there's a brain tumor, told was a DNET, in my left temporal lobe.

After issues with anti-seizure meds, which are really annoying with so many side effects, I went with surgery to get the tumor yanked with the hope of them snagging the part causing the seizures, which apparently aren't caused by the tumor itself. A few weeks after the surgery, I was called back and told the tumor wasn't a DNET as expected, but a low grade glioma. Not the GBM as talked about in the article, but a regrowth where I'm on the schedule of MRI every three months to check to see how if it's growing back yet.

I'm left handed, holding the phone to my left ear where the tumor was / is, which would fit along with what they're trying to show here. I'm 27 now, I never talked on the phone much, and I'm not going to sit here and try to find something to blame. Like casually mentioned at the end of the article, I'll go with saying it could be from "fallout from atomic bomb tests in the atmosphere", or, you know, bad luck.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#120

Post by copperx »

walterbell wrote: post #116
Spooky23 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm fascinated about casual dismissal of actual problems justified by the fact that other problems exist. I'm not panicked by this issue, but I think there's something there. I play cards with a bunch of neurosurgeons - every one of them has professional concerns about cellular and bluetooth usage, and 4/6 expressed those concerns to me individually about my AirPods.

Wired headphones work well. Is there risk from holding a transmitting phone in the hand for an hour, or adjacent to one part of body tissue, during an extended call? How about frequencies, e.g. will 5G alter the risk to local tissue? Is WiFi lower power & risk?

It would be nice to have some guides for mitigating the risk.
Post reply on HN