Live data from Hacker News

Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

telegraph.co.uk

91–100 of 185 posts

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#91
post #55
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)?

Are there any statistics available which can link GBM to age?

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.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#92
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…

It's a lot worse than the prediction regarding the VW scandal and that continues to make headlines today.

http://news.mit.edu/2017/volkswagen-emissions-premature-deat...

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would think that such phones did not have as high powered radios as a cellular phone due to less transmission distance required. I also have the impression that they weren't overly popular because of the ease of eavesdropping.

If analog cordless phones captured interference from fluorescent lighting and automotive ignition systems[1], does that mean there is a vast array of things that could cause health effects via RF?

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordless_telephone

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree that bigger issues for health-conscious people should be smoking & overeating, and not exercising. Why not look at other health risks like cell phone or drinking a glass of wine or eating chocolate or whatever, once the bigger ones are taken care of?

1. Because those still haven't been taken care of 2. Because these sensationalized risks are the ones that get coverage more than the true risks

You're taking some kind of global, government level point of view. It doesn't help individuals like me and my peers who have already made the fundamental commitments to being healthy and now want to watch out for new dangers. I'm not going to wait around for the rest of the world to wake up, smell the coffee, and live a healthy lifestyle like me before accepting research on new, unknown potential dangers.

There is plenty of coverage of the risks of smoking, bad diet and lack of exercise. It's in schools, it's in government materials, it's in posters, on packs of cigarettes, TED talks. There are non-profits dedicated to this causes creating propaganda. There are even national fitness and stop smoking days. No one in the world can claim, "Oh really? smoking isn't healthy? damn, I wish I'd known that!" They're making choices for themselves (modulo addiction and cognitive difficulties). I don't know how much more coverage would personally satisfy you.

Calling the article about cell phone risk sensationalized is out of proportion and not just a cute exaggeration. This is simply another article in a newspaper that runs hundreds of articles a day. If it were on a billboard, if television was interrupted, if a national holiday were declared, these kinds of things might render it sensational. However, it's simply a news article on a web page between an ad for women's clothing an a breast cancer medicine ad.

Maybe you think information about new health risks should be stowed further in favor of improving the health of people in general. If you feel strongly about that and you're not just trolling, I urge you to take some action and attempt to change peoples' minds about smoking, diet and exercise yourself, because you haven't changed my mind at all about the importance of researching and publishing the potential risks of cell phones.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#95
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't find the cite right now, but I recall there was a study some years back that found that heavy mobile phone users didn't have any higher rate of brain cancer than the general population, but among those who did get cancer, there was a strong statistical correlation between the side of the head where they most used the phone and the location of the cancer.

I'm calling it now, there's some gene which codes for "sense of direction" and results in some kind of magnetic element embedded in some nerve cells (the way some birds 'see' the Earth's magnetic field), which also makes them vulnerable to excessive EMF radiaton.

That's a reasonable hypothesis. Still just a hypothesis of course.

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#97

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?

I have the impression that, since the era of smartphones, people actually talk on their cellphones less, and text more. If so, and if there were anything to this article's posited link, then we would expect the rate of tumors to drop again in the coming years. Just a speculation.

1. Fewer tumors with texting, yes, especially when fatal car crashes due to texting are factored in. 2. Texting, especially long-form MMS, iMessage, WhatsApp, etc., replace the need for phone calls in a lot of cases. I do think of my iPhone as a portable computer that also has voice-communications capability...

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#99
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…

Still though, I always have and always will prefer to use my headset when talking on the mobile.

A wired headset, I presume?

Re: Mobile phone cancer warning as malignant brain tumours double

#100
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…

Or it helps them ignore the bigger/harder issues. How many people is stress killing? Is stress affecting your work, family? Is stress causing addiction? Is stress due to food, or workplace environment.

Smoking kills. But I think people overestimate stuff. Unless you are smoking 60-100 cigs per day, I'd not be worried. When I worked in the cardiology department, those who suffered from pulmonary diseases were heavy smokers. Like 3-4 packets a day for 25 years. Now that kills.

But what if stress was the cause for your smoking and drinking habit. What if stress and anger reduced your concentration and led to that traffic accident.

Research focus on headlines, funding, and fame. It is another thing that is wrong with our world.

Post reply on HN