Study claims cellphone radiation can cause cancer

“The scientists were right — your cell phone can give you cancer,” Meredith Engel reports for The New York Daily News. “There have long been whispers of a cancer connection from your cell — and a new study backs up the claims. ‘These data are a clear sign of the real risks this kind of radiation poses for human health,’ study author Igor Yakymenko said.

“But even though the risk of brain and related cancers is low — in 2012, there were 6.4 cases per 100,000 U.S. adults — Yakymenko says we should be on alert because ailments can take up to 30 years to develop,” Engel reports. “To minimize your risk, use your phone less and go hands-free to keep the frequency away from your head, Yakymenko said.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: If true, thankfully, we hardly ever use our iPhones for actual cellular calls, so they’re never placed next to our heads.

As an aside, and especially for those in the U.S., have you ever noticed how many references to “cancer” you are bombarded with throughout the day? From pink ribbons on food containers, to TV shows, morning, noon, and night, radio, Web, newspapers, etc.? Count them. You might be surprised. You’ll likely lose track. It’s literally hundreds of times per day! “Cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer, cancer…” We’re all for “awareness,” and we’ve had close family affected with various cancers, but enough already (as we cover a “cancer” article, no less)!

Somebody, perhaps Igor, should do a study of whether or not being inundated with talk of cancer hundreds of times per day might actually cause or fuel it simply through the power of suggestion.

Oxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiation by Igor Yakymenko et al. is here.

SEE ALSO:
U.S. watchdog calls for regulators to review of cell phone radiation rules – August 8, 2012
FCC’s Genachowski looks to open new inquiry into cellphone radiation emissions – June 16, 2012
New research doubts link between cellphones and cancer – July 5, 2011

29 Comments

  1. The increase in diagnosed brain cancer is exactly proration all to the increased number of MRI devices in hospitals. The increase in MRI scanners has been in the same time period as the development of cell phones. There is no reason to blame phones. There are just many more brains being scanned!

    1. It used to be called NMRI – nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. The “nuclear” scared people so they quickly renamed it. — Odd, that people weren’t similarly frightened by the name “X-rays”, which are considerably more damaging, requiring leaden shields. But I think I understand why one technology acronym led to popular hysteria and another was accepted as benign. It’s because X-rays were introduced around 1900, when science was widely regarded as a wonderful boon to humankind. By 2000, that perception had been corrupted and politicised, so that any new theories or technologies were viewed sceptically. Older, accepted ideas, like X-rays, remained in the public’s comfort zone.

  2. This wasn’t a real controlled study, but a meta analysis – a “study of studies” – made by combining previous studies. It is well known to be dependent on including good original studies. It is open to all sorts of “selection bias.” Garbage in, garbage out. In medicine, it is the category of study least worthy of giving any serious credence to. One of my favorite medical articles was “Meta analysis, Shmeta analysis.” The bottom line, this proves nothing.

    1. To be sure, it proves nothing—except that lots of people will react with alarm to certain stimuli—like provoking people’s inarticulate fear of unintended consequences, or their suspicion of the new—which are neatly bundled in this study, and unashamedly exploited by the newspaper.

  3. Anyone familiar with radio knows the human body absorbs RF energy. Only certain frequencies can cause actual damage. Which frequencies can damage DNA? Cellular frequencies run a huge range from 700 MHz to 2.5 GHz. Without specifying the frequency or frequencies that can damage genetic material, this study is as useful as a study that states that infrared can burn you.

  4. The scientists were right — your cell phone can give you cancer

    Rubbish. There have been many experiments, all failures, attempting to verify the HYPOTHESIS (not even a theory) that cell phone radiation can induce or enable cancer. So there who are these ‘scientists’ that were ‘right’ if this was never beyond a hypothesis?

    BAD SCIENCE. Everyone’s an expert and everyone’s wrong. Watch your terminology Meredith! There’s no room for messing around in science.

    Back to reality:
    This study, according to the video, relies upon CORRELATION to offer evidence. There’s a very old saying in statistics that:

    Correlation does not equal proof.

    Correlation instead indicates that there may be proof of a hypothesis. Correlation is used as an indicator that further understanding of the subject is required as well as a better experiment. NEVER EVER depend on correlation as proof of anything.

    Instead, what will follow will be new experiments to tease out further factor in the system being tested, better tests, better data. When sufficient and adequate directly related data has been collected, THEN an actual decision can be determined.

    Does correlation determine whether a hypothesis has become a theory? It can, after someone has repeated the experiment and found the same results. Until then, NO.

    Sorry kiddies and researchers DESPERATE to publish or perish. This is how ACTUAL science works. It’s supposed to be hard. Deal with it.

    * Oh and yes, I’d save anyone’s cat over a cell phone. Machines are ONLY machines. Life is the point of living.

    ** I also NEVER microwave in plastic. I use glass or ceramic. Dump the food out of the source container, nuke away. Eating plastic and plasticizer is a very bad idea.

    As for the researcher’s advice: That’s perfectly sound and sensible. Lower exposure to the potential carcinogen/disease vector. That means minimizing the amount of radiation exposure. And yes, the proper term for all electron magnetic energy is indeed ‘radiation’. It doesn’t just refer to radioactive materials, alpha particles, beta particles and gamma rays. Light (and all ‘light’ is visible to humans) is also radiation.

    IOW ‘radiation’ need not be a bad thing. The questions are:

    1) What kind of radiation?
    2) What amount of exposure over time?
    3) What human tissue is receiving the radiation?
    4) What is the effect of that radiation exposure?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.