Yea..kinda... but I mean bussiness and the world revovles around cell phones in this technology age we have... Cell phones keeps us working and stuff. I mean everything is now cell phones. When your driving home probbly like 9 out of 10 ppl are talking on the there cell phones.... Esp. in LA!!! and LA TRAFFIC!! all those Carbon Monxide... LOL we live in a DEADLY world..!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone High Risk of Cancer...?
- Thread starter Djmx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yea..kinda... but I mean bussiness and the world revovles around cell phones in this technology age we have... Cell phones keeps us working and stuff. I mean everything is now cell phones. When your driving home probbly like 9 out of 10 ppl are talking on the there cell phones.... Esp. in LA!!! and LA TRAFFIC!! all those Carbon Monxide... LOL we live in a DEADLY world..!
The use of RF signals over an extended period of time 'heat up' the tissue and allegedly cause cancerous tumors, the study finds.
I'm not sure what part of the OP's quote is from the actual study or not, but a couple comments on that:
RF can (and only) cause heating. I refer to some posts in the thread I linked for explanations of power and propagation.
"allegedly" is not even close to a scientific theory.
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.
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth both use the same frequency band.
For the study itself - From what I can find, which is just a summary of the study, it was a study of patients with diagnosed malignant tumors. These patients already had the tumors, so it looks like it was a survey of cell phone use by those who already had tumors. It's also a very small sample (905 cases).
I'm not a physician, but it seems like the study would need (at a minimum) to include group that was healthy and used cell phones. I believe the VAST amount of scientific studies of the effects of various frequencies and power levels on tissue show no effect, which agrees with the physics of the interaction of EM at radio frequencies and cell structures.
Not sure if they did one on the cancer myth, but they did the "cell phone caused my car/gas station to explode" one. And - no, it doesn't.
The iPhone hasn't been out anywhere near the amount of time needed to conduct a test such as this. The Bluetooth and WiFi waves don't pose a threat. Although there has been much commotion over the "harmful" waves given off by cellular devices, they still haven't given much proof of it. The iPhone is like any other phone in this way.
RF only produces heat; no other strange phenomenon, and the transmitters are usually shielded so RF stays enclosed.
When I was radio-ham I operated an HF station with one kilowatt of RF power. That's 1000 watts!! A typical cellphone only has 6 milliwatts (6/1000s of a watt) it's nothing; it's like getting lung cancer because a guy that lives a block away from you smokes.
The typical handy-talkie that security ppl use have about 5 or 6 full watts and a VHF base station that some have in their houses/boats /trucks have 100 watts
When I was radio-ham I operated an HF station with one kilowatt of RF power. That's 1000 watts!! A typical cellphone only has 6 milliwatts (6/1000s of a watt) it's nothing; it's like getting lung cancer because a guy that lives a block away from you smokes.
The typical handy-talkie that security ppl use have about 5 or 6 full watts and a VHF base station that some have in their houses/boats /trucks have 100 watts
That paper is from 2006 and if you look at my previous response, I noted that what I could find seemed to be from that year.
What I was commenting on was that today (or yesterday and today) this was on several "news" sites. If you look at them, there are no links to the original papers, only a general discussion of what may be a year old paper.
Why on earth would it be all over the blogosphere today?
I couldn't find any information on what is so important in this study that it had to be reported on today.
Sickening. This is worse than the "aluminum causes alzheimers" myth.
I bet some of you will say, "Wait, I thought aluminum does cause alzheimers?"
No. Improperly recycled Chinese metals melted down and cut with recycled hub caps made into cookware....that is linked to alheizmers.
Try getting cancer from virgin aluminum from the mountains in western europe.
I bet some of you will say, "Wait, I thought aluminum does cause alzheimers?"
No. Improperly recycled Chinese metals melted down and cut with recycled hub caps made into cookware....that is linked to alheizmers.
Try getting cancer from virgin aluminum from the mountains in western europe.
Didn't I read last year that this makes it worse by magnifying the problem and sending it directly into the ear.
You cannot spend your life worrying about such things, otherwise it won't be worth living.
Regardless of whether you believe this stuff or not, we are the guinea pig generation. Wi-fi, TV, mobile phones, overhead power lines, cellphone towers, iPods, artificial sweeteners, food colourings, flavour enhancers etc. If these things are truly dangerous, it is us who will suffer. But we won't really know for another 20-30 years. And by then it will be too late.
And besides, it is generally those individuals who have a genetic vulnerability to cancer who get affected anyway. It takes a heck of a lot more to make someone, who comes from a cancer-free background, get cancer.
And besides, it is generally those individuals who have a genetic vulnerability to cancer who get affected anyway. It takes a heck of a lot more to make someone, who comes from a cancer-free background, get cancer.
That's the nice thing about laws of physics and the reproducible experimental results supporting them - they don't care whether you believe in them or not. They just are.
edit: But, I'll have to agree we have been guinea-pigs for at least some of the things you mention (chemicals, foods and the like - stuff that can actually affect cells.)
well I guess all that must add up or something because the death rate on humans is 100%
Tomorrow, you could get cancer from your iPhone. Tomorrow, you could get eaten alive by a shark in your bathtub. What should we do? I think the only rational thing to do is to take all our money out of the bank today and spend it on prostitues. Live like there is no tomorrow.
...
...
...
...
I don't consider that bad science... I just don't consider it science, period.
I agree that if it's not in a peer-reviewed science journal then the claims are tenuous at best... i.e. I don't consider it substantiated until it's in a peer-reviewed journal, e.g. NEJM, Science, Am. J. Phyisol., etc. By the way, I was a member of AAAS for several years.
That being said, I have seen studies on this published in peer reviewed journals but the studies do not all agree as consistently as they do on, say, global warming.
As for finding them... it's rather hard to find ANY peer reviewed study on the internet because peer-reviewed journals are not in widespread circulation and the net is rife instead with popular media bullcrap. You have to be quite specific... e.g. if you search "Fruit fly evolution" you'll get a ton of layman articles in the popular press. However, if you search "Pax-6 homolog in Drosophila melanogaster" you'll get specific peer-reviewed studies.
Did you try searching the archives at medline or science.org? Both require memberships. I still receive "Science" so I'll see if I still have access to the science.org archives.
I just don't think the jury is yet decided one way or the other on the potential for microwave irradiation on humans from cellular phone exposure, and I err on the side of doubt in regard to the actual conclusion... but i err on the side of caution in practice because if more research finds there to be a significant risk, there's absolutely no harm whatsoever in having taken precautions... but there can be harm in not having done so. I don't run a cellular company, do you? Neither of us should stand to lose huge sums of money if we take some precautions... so what is the serious harm in erring on the side of caution? So far nobody has been able to answer this question... which I posed in a previous post.
Mind you, I'm not advocating full-blown agoraphobia... that's an absurd response and one has to live their life. All sorts of things can kill you... I'm not sure that looking at a fruit fly the wrong way will get you in trouble, but stranger things have happened. But I would be curious to look at the funding and see if there's a strong correlation between studies funded by the cell phone industry and no findings of significant cancer risk. It's not out of the question when you consider how tobacco executives were skewered by Jeff Wigand (a former tobacco exec and the subject of the film "The Insider") when it came out that they suppressed numerous studies directly linking cigarettes to cancer.
I'm just saying that's one thing to think about.
I think that getting eaten alive by a shark in your bathtub is much less likely than getting cancer from your iphone, no?
Every would get cancer eventually - it's only the fact that some people die before they get the chance that prevents that.
If people didn't die of old age or accidents, they'd get cancer sooner or later - whether they're in their 30s, 40s, 80s, or 100s.
Obviously, people with a genetic vulnerability would be the ones to get it earlier, but in certain ways, cancer is unavoidable.
We can also put light in the same category as microwaves and GSM signals. They're all electromagnetic waves. So does light cause cancer?
That reminds me. Some anti-WiFi website was saying that having a wireless router in your house is like living inside a microwave oven
Depends on the spectrum, right, but I think the answer to your question is yes, light can cause cancer.
I'm assuming you mean ultraviolet light, which is outside the visible spectrum.
Voidness: UV is about a million times shorter wavelength than the radio used in cell phones. Shorter wavelength = higher energies = ability to interact with molecular structures.