iPhone High Risk of Cancer...?

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by Djmx, Oct 10, 2007.

  1. Djmx macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    #1
    I got this off Looprumors... Seems pretty serious.. What you guys think?

    Hey what you guys think of this? I got it from Looprumors...? \

    "iPhones pose a high cancer risk?
    October 10th, 2007 | 09:32am EST | Posted by drawbob

    A new study out of Sweden finds that cell phones are linked to a high risk of cancer, especially among the youth. The study concludes that long-term use of radio frequency (RF) signals close to the ear cause tumors on the nerve that travels from the ear to the brain. The use of RF signals over an extended period of time 'heat up' the tissue and allegedly cause cancerous tumors, the study finds.

    Developing teens are at a higher risk of being affected. The findings do not specify specific brands of cell phones, but do mention that the radio frequencies that close to the brain are directly related to cancerous tumors.

    The iPhone is one of the only phones that utilizes three (3) different types of radio frequencies, cellular, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth. This puts iPhone users at a higher risk of exposure to the factors mentioned in the study.
     
  2. robPOD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Location:
    NZ
  3. earthsick macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    central nj
    #3
    This is a story that has been picked up by many news outlets since yesterday...the fact that they are now tying it to the iphone is laughable and is an example of the media's fetish for shooting down the iPhone. This story is really nothing new. Besides...people that this story pertains to would probably be more worried about becoming homeless...the amount of time you would have to talk (heavy usage for 10+ years) would surely ring up one hell of a bill.
     
  4. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #4
    Do what I do and keep it in your pocket - no chance of brain cancer then.
     
  5. Sobe macrumors 68000

    Sobe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Location:
    Wash DC suburbs
    #5
    There are people in this world whose job is to make sure that normal untrained people have absolutely no understanding of risk/benefit analysis.

    I would put this in that category.
     
  6. Devil's Refugee macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2007
    #6
     
  7. Avatar74 macrumors 65816

    Avatar74

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    #7
    Now hang on... It's just as wrong to go laughing away this story as it is to eat it up.

    There is no question that there is a risk... the question is, "How much of a risk is there?"

    That depends on the magnitude and duration of the exposure. It is interesting that there is a minimum distance from the ear that Apple states their iPhone is safe to operate with minimal risk of cancer. That should tell you that they do have concerns about prolonged exposure to the antenna at very close range.

    It also suggests that they positioned the antenna to the bottom in the form factor precisely to increase the distance between the ear and the antenna. Whatever you want to think about the politics of cancer studies, however prejudiced by your political affiliation your position may be, that's a pretty close threshold by any account.

    Anything used beyond moderation can be harmful. Electromagnetic spectra are no exception.

    There is, however, greater risk of cancer from exposure to the sun and many other EM sources (including certain RF ranges that are at frequencies which can agitate tissue the way that microwave RF agitates water molecules to produce the heat that cooks food in a microwave oven).

    That said, iPhone's risk may be minimal but the longer you exposure yourself to a source, the less power is required in that signal to have a detrimental effect. I will never understand the motivations of people who recoil in horror at the advice of others who suggest we be prudent in mitigating things like cancer, global warming, etc. Since when is prudence a bad thing except for those, to paraphrase Upton Sinclair, whose personal fortunes depend on the absence of it?
     
  8. Djmx thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    #8
    What bout the other expousre.. Wfi, BT..? if u use BT is the exposure less... the ear piece is better.... i dont' want cancer... i'm tooo young to DIE!! lol
     
  9. Sobe macrumors 68000

    Sobe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Location:
    Wash DC suburbs
    #9
    Their concerns are with lawsuits, not addressing anything based in reality.

    Prudence is a bad thing when people use bad science to push an agenda by cultivating a culture of fear.
     
  10. Avatar74 macrumors 65816

    Avatar74

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2007
    #10
    The warnings do not entirely exonerate Apple from lawsuits in this case. That being said, the motivation for the warnings may be protection from lawsuits but the prima facie evidence that would substantiate a lawsuit would not be someone who claims a risk of cancer, but someone who has cancer. Therefore, it's possible the warning is trying to avoid lawsuits by trying to encourage safety measures that might mitigate the potential for developing cancer.

    If you don't have cancer, you don't have a basis for filing a lawsuit claiming that Apple's iPhone gave you cancer.

    You're confusing two things here... You're confusing irrational fears with prudence. Whether rational or irrational fears are the cause of prudence, when is prudence itself a bad thing? When is it better to be sorry than safe? It is never unreasonable to err on the side of caution.

    Also, note that I do not myself agree that cell phones pose a clinically significant risk of cancer. This is after having read many peer-reviewed studies, and not just the popular media articles citing them. However, I do not think your use of the term "bad science" is appropriate here.

    There is nothing "bad" in the science that led some studies to observe that there is a risk. The methodologies in most of those studies were not flawed. But the sum total of studies done do not produce consistent enough results to agree as to what degree of risk there is. That there is a risk is a no-brainer. There is always a risk when RF/EM is involved. These devices aren't heavily regulated because they're perfectly 100% safe to use... they're regulated because RF/EM disturbances can be harmful in one way or another. I didn't say they are harmful... but if we had no regulations we couldn't filter out products from the market that ARE harmful.

    Is there any reason other than your personal disagreement with the findings that you classify the science itself as "bad"? For example, did you find flaws with the particular control group, size of the sample population, margins of error between studies, lack of a placebo, lack of proper clinical isolation of other root causes?

    Science itself pushes no agenda. Science is just a process, not a person or thing capable of promoting anything, to determine facts. As the facts are presented in a scientific study, people are left to draw whatever philosophical conclusions they want from them. Science does not have an agenda because facts alone do not have an agenda. You might think some facts favor one agenda over another. It's the other way around... facts don't favor agendas, agendas favor the facts that support them. That doesn't change what the facts are. If the facts don't agree with your agenda or my agenda, too bad... our wishing will not make facts go away.

    Politicians often use science or the lack of understanding thereof to push one agenda or another. And having an agenda is not in itself a bad thing. Everyone has a point of view... you clearly do. The question is how well you can defend it on the basis of facts. Frankly, I don't see you having presented a single fact that substantiates any of your claims... even though I personally do not find there to be significant enough risk of cancer to worry about cell phones.
     
  11. Sobe macrumors 68000

    Sobe

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2007
    Location:
    Wash DC suburbs
    #11
    not being able to find the data published in a peer reviewed journal is all I need to consider it bad science.

    Also, it looks like these same results were reported in april of 2006 so ot seems a little sketchy.

    Here's my personal challenge: provide a link detailing all of the materials, methods, and statistical analysis used to make the claims reported in the media.

    Not one site i could find had a link tp any original material.
     
  12. Cinemagic macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2007
    #12
    Wasn't the "cell phone causing brain cancer" scare put to rest about 10 years ago? Maybe it's true. Everyone forgot that it didn't cause cancer. Maybe it causes Alzheimer's instead.
     
  13. gceo macrumors 6502a

    gceo

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
    Too much of almost anything can cause cancer.

    NPR had an interesting article on cancer the other day. Saying that most of the research funds go to treating and living with cancer rather than studying the causes. Pharmaceutical companies make bank off cancer meds, so there is no incentive to stamp it out. NPR went on to talk about all the bias with the studies, and pretty much every study out there has bias depending on who funded it.

    To me, this is like saying the sky is blue... think about it. Of course radio waves cause cancer. You can cook a hotdog in the microwave, but when you hold a GSM device to your head, right next to your brain, and it's communicating with a tower several miles away, that HAS to be bad for your health.

    Too much sun causes cancer. Maybe we should sue the sun.

    Be smart kids. Limit your time. Use landlines or TXT when you can.
     
  14. PDE macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    #14


    I believe it's this study:

    Lennart Hardell, Kjell Hansson Mild and Michael Carlberg. Pooled analyses of two case-control studies on use of cellular and cordless telephones and the risk for malignant brain tumours diagnosed in 1997-2003. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2006, DOI 10.1007/s00420-006-0088-5.

    Here is is some more information: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1621063


    I wouldn't be so quick on my feet dismissing studies immediately just because YOU can't find them immediately online. Search 'Lennart Hardell' and/or "cellular telephone" in PubMed and you'll find quite a bit.
     
  15. CD3660 macrumors 68040

    CD3660

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Location:
    Cheshire, United Kingdom.
    #15
    Trouser pocket = testicular cancer
    Back pocket = colon cancer
    Jacket pocket = lung cancer

    Take your pick. ;)
     
  16. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #16
    I doubt steve (who has been diagnosed with cancer) would let that happen.
     
  17. Djmx thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    #17
    Steve Jobs Diagnosed with cancer??
     
  18. gr8tfly macrumors 603

    gr8tfly

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    ~119W 34N
    #18
    How do I put this? The above statement shows a lack of understanding about radio technology and the physics of RF propagation.

    "Of course radio waves cause cancer." No. What do you base this statement on? Someone told you? You read it somewhere? I'm open to hearing the physics behind this. It is nothing but popular pseudo-science.

    Myself and others have tried to post some real science here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=362210

    *sigh* "This thing just won't leave" - Sigorney Weaver DTV ad
     
  19. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
  20. Southern macrumors regular

    Southern

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20
    Hehe more scare tactics and FUD put about by rivals...

    It's almost like clockwork, something comes around that people claim causes health concerns. Like so:

    70s - Electricity pylons
    80s - Microwaves
    90s - Mobile Phone masts
    00s - Wifi

    Once I see definate proof I will make up my mind, but everything in moderation is not a bad idea, eh?

    Otherwise, I'd best invest in a stylish new tinfoil hat.
     
  21. Djmx thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    #21
    Wow...i didn't know that.

    Alright soo what is the final answer...? Should i use my iPhone.. cuz i use it a lot and I talk on my iPhone a lot. Is BLUETOOTH BETTER? Iphone Headset? fewer risks.. i dont want CANCER! =(.

    Also by the time we are (or i am like 30-40yrs.) i'm sure there is a lot more cures for cancer.. if all those 1 million ppl to got the iPhone gets cancer America has to do somethng about it. If a lot of ppl get cancer as we grow up then there is an Issue... Plus they say everything Bring caners... Don't breath in the Parking lot... chemicals causes reproducitve Harm, microwave, Foil etc... i mean bascially everything... so seriously WTF!!
     
  22. Southern macrumors regular

    Southern

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Location:
    London, UK
    #22
    Dude keep your hair on. FUD is designed to make people you question things irrationally. Just keep it in moderation, yeah? Bluetooth and GSM/EDGE are both radio signals so there's not much difference between them (save that Bluetooth is not meant to be sent over large distances).
     
  23. PDE macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    #23

    I would like to hear your expert comments on the above study.
     
  24. Djmx thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    #24
    So use the earpiece is better than ?
     
  25. Southern macrumors regular

    Southern

    Joined:
    May 15, 2007
    Location:
    London, UK
    #25
    Well, those radio signals are going to go somewhere and if you have it in your pocket, well it doesn't matter if you're a bloke or a girl, you're going to hit your respective reproductive organs!

    Take it with a pinch of salt. I mean, you do know that there is radiation all around us, right, not just from sources like phones that we carry on us?
     

Share This Page