Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double • Hacker News Board

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#151

Post by jacquesm » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:04 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #146

jacquesm wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been many people saying that cell phones can cause tumors and they have been shouted down by industry experts on many occasions. Now, I wouldn't know the truth about this either way but (1) electromagnetic radiation is something we can measure and quantify and (2) almost anything in excess has the ability to cause cancer because it interferes with certain cell mechanisms. To categorically reject something…

The challenge is that cell phones causing cancer is that the idea that they cause cancer has long been promoted by morons who think that they produce radiation like a nuclear reactor. The electromagnetic radiation that cell phones actually do produce is similar to say a radio or even more aptly a microwave and anyone who has ever nuked a spud knows what too much of it looks like and knows that your phones radio falls…

It's more along the lines of: electromagnetic radiation causes tissue to warm up, warmer tissue can lead to trouble. The problem is that todays cell phones output extremely low amounts of EM but at very high frequencies. And that makes it a very hard problem to determine whether or not there is an actual risk.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#152

Post by DanBC » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:07 PM UTC

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.

It's not that other risks exist. It's that doubling a tiny risk still leaves a tiny risk.

I don't need a brain surgeon to tell me they're seeing lots of people with brain tumour. I need a public health statistician telling what my risk is with and without a cellphone.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#153

Post by dnautics » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:09 PM UTC

bhouston wrote: post #2

It is curious. I wonder why non-ionizing radiation causes cancer? Given we are constantly bathing in wifi signals and cellphone signals, I wonder what the effects will be?

DNA is a conductor, and it's possible that inducing current on the wire will jam electrical signals used by certain DNA correcting proteins (like the BER system) to hone in on mutations. The frequencies that cellphones operate on are known to induce currents on DNA.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#154

Post by klipt » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:12 PM UTC

emsy wrote: post #58

tonmoy wrote: post #21

> cases of GBM in England have increased from around 1,250 a year in 1995 to just under 3,000. Not only the population of UK has increased in this time, it has also gotten older on average. Moreover is 0.002% of population getting GBM per year even significant enough to blame mobile phones (that is used by everyone)?

And brain cancer detection probably got better as well.

GBMs kill ~78% of patients within 2 years. Earlier detection wouldn't change the statistics much.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#155

Post by taoistextremist » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:13 PM UTC

pdpi wrote: post #132

jhayward wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be linked to age, just a yearly probability summed over more years. Then you can start adding in the things that make people live longer, like less heart disease per year of life, etc., and you get the same effect they are charting.

If the effect isn't related to age, then what you're describing is captured by population.

Any cancer is related to age in the sense that the older a person is, the more opportunity they've had to encounter it. I suppose the best way to look at it is see how many cumulative years a population represents: if a population is getting older on average, then the cumulative years have risen, therefore there's been more opportunity to encounter this disease.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#156

Post by astura » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:22 PM UTC

gnode wrote: post #144

astura wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Most people aren't autopsied upon death, autopsies are only performed in limited circumstances. I don't personally know of a single person whom died who an autopsy was performed on. 2) The article is vague and short but "cases of GBM in England have increased from around 1,250 a year in 1995 to just under 3,000" almost certainly refers to diagnosed cases of GBM, not including incidentals found in autopsies.

Autopsies are performed when the cause of death is indeterminate. Most people die of a known cause. A family member of mine was autopsied (in the UK) when they died unexpectedly. I expect that if killed by brain cancer, you'll either present symptoms resulting in a diagnosis (albeit a late one), or die unexpectedly and be autopsied.

You're entirely ignoring comorbidity.

Glioblastomas are associated with Alzheimer's disease. Its entirely possible that 20 years ago the symptoms of a brain tumor would be attributed to Alzheimer's when the patient was already dying of Alzheimer's, or other terminal illness for that matter. With better awareness and detection we may pick up new diagnoses in the sick and dying.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#157

Post by ohyes » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:26 PM UTC

Even if this were the case, luckily no one really talks on their mobile phones anymore, it's predominantly FaceTime and candy crush.

I would also be interested to know if the tumors are predominantly on the right side of the head near the ear...

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#158

Post by d0lph » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:30 PM UTC

darkstar999 wrote: post #75

> “It’s important, though, to understand that this new paper did not examine any new data at all about potential causes for the increase.” How is this about mobile phones? I think this is pure clickbait and should be removed.

The title is pretty deceptive, it seems to claim the study finds a link between cellphones and cancer.

Although the group did apparently comment on cellphones as a thing to investigate.

> Last night the group said the increasing rate of tumours in the frontal temporal lobe “raises the suspicion that mobile and cordless phone use may be promoting gliomas”.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#159

Post by michaelmrose » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:42 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #151

michaelmrose wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The challenge is that cell phones causing cancer is that the idea that they cause cancer has long been promoted by morons who think that they produce radiation like a nuclear reactor. The electromagnetic radiation that cell phones actually do produce is similar to say a radio or even more aptly a microwave and anyone who has ever nuked a spud knows what too much of it looks like and knows that your phones radio falls…

It's more along the lines of: electromagnetic radiation causes tissue to warm up, warmer tissue can lead to trouble. The problem is that todays cell phones output extremely low amounts of EM but at very high frequencies. And that makes it a very hard problem to determine whether or not there is an actual risk.

Absent evidence of harm AND a plausible mechanism for harm there is no reason to assume harm. All we have at the moment is an uptick in a particular kind of cancer without a plausible mechanism how do we assign that to cell phones?

Why don't we see a similar uptick everywhere for example instead of just in england?

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#160

Post by ItsMe000001 » Thu, May 03, 2018, 5:44 PM UTC

gnode wrote: post #69

ItsMe000001 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You only get cancer in tissues with active cell division, such as the skin or epithelial tissue. For the hand that's the skin. Most cells in the body don't divide after your initial growth phase (all the way to adulthood). You are "produced" once and from then on there only is "maintenance", which includes growth of new cells only in tissues that absolutely require it throughout lifetime. Evolution turned it off in a…

While cancer rates are often higher in cell types with higher division rates, there are many other risk factors. The increased incidence of skin cancer is due largely to exposure to mutagenic ionising radiation from the sun, which is absorbed readily by the skin. Microwave radiation is more deeply penetrating. Although I believe it is unlikely to cause cancer.

Yes of course. My point was merely binary, about what kinds of tissue can get cancer. I thought that was appropriate for a question starting with "Is it possible".