backtop


Print 107 comment(s) - last by Smiting Eye.. on Apr 10 at 5:44 PM


"It's not a tumor!"
Top British researcher says cell phones more harmful than asbestos or cigarette smoke

Dr. Vini Khurana, a top British neurosurgeon and medical researcher, is trying ardently to grab people's attention about what he sees as a grave risk to health.  He has published over 30 papers; his specialty -- cell phones and their links to disease.  He has reviewed over 100 papers on the links between cell phones and cancer.  His latest research, currently under peer-review prior to journal publication, emphasizes a strong link between cell phones and tumors.

Not one to shirk from using strong language on the topic, Dr. Khurana states controversially, "Mobile phones could have health consequences far greater than asbestos and smoking."

The number of users is the first aspect to look at, says Dr. Khurana.  Over 3 billion people worldwide use a cell phone, according to Dr. Khurana.  Only about one billion people worldwide smoke, evidence to his claims.  The smoking population incurs approximately five million worldwide smoking related deaths a year. 

The doctor expresses no uncertainty about whether cell phones cause cancer.  He states emphatically, "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumors."

Government action is a necessity says Dr. Khurana, but he declines to elaborate on possible measures.  The cell phone industry meanwhile scoffs at the research.  Britain's Mobile Operators Association, a major telecomm collective commented that the new study was "a selective discussion of scientific literature by one individual."

In the U.S. last September, a research study by the Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research Programme indicated that there was no cell phone-cancer link.  However, the normally conservative National Academy of Sciences reporting at the bequest of the Food and Drug Administration ruled that there was a possible link, but more research was needed.  The National Academy of Sciences suggested studies on the effects of use on children and pregnant women and a comparative study of heavy users and the general population. 

In February, DailyTech reported in a study appearing in a U.S. medical journal, which indicated that heavy cell phone use raised the risk of some tumors as much as 50 percent.  Cancers of the salivary gland in particular were found to be the most commonly induced type.  This study differed in that it looked at the effects of long term use.  Also it was among the first studies to examine cancer rates in other organs besides the brain.

Many doctors have expressed concern since the 1980s, when cell phones came into widespread use, that the electromagnetic radiation from the cell phone transmissions might increase mutation rates, upping individuals' cancer risk.  With evidence mildly supporting such conclusions mounting, similar concerns have recently been voiced about Wi-Fi.  Sir William Stewart, chairman of Britain's Health Protection Agency, demanded a thorough investigation of possible cancer/Wi-Fi correlations, based on the fact that Wi-Fi exposure to electromagnetic fields is often even more prolific than that from cell phones.  Allegedly, some people are sensitive enough to Wi-Fi that it causes them headaches.  The Austrian Medical Association is lobbying for a countrywide ban on Wi-Fi.

The new research from Dr. Khurana also follows in the conclusions of other European studies.  A study in Finland found that cell phone users of 10 years or more were 40 percent more likely to get a brain tumor on the side of the head they usually hold their phone.  A follow up study in Sweden indicate this risk to be closer to four times as great.

Cell phone use is currently banned on planes due to interference dangers, however, most analysts agree that a national level ban in any industrialized nation is impractical.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

really???
By ikkeman on 3/31/2008 9:36:12 PM , Rating: 2
You mean this highly educated, probably pretty smart person says their is a link between a source of major EM radiation held right besides my head and my health...

You know what - I think he might be right. Subjecting the human body to influances or situation for witch evolution (or the creator - let's not start that discussion here) did not prepare it is usually detrimental to health. Right?

Spaceflight (osteoporosis), smoking, not eating a varied diet, not excercizing, having a phone against your head all day - excess is always a bad idea
What I'd like to know - what about headphones??? I don't phone that much but listen to music all day!




RE: really???
By masher2 (blog) on 3/31/2008 10:16:58 PM , Rating: 2
> "Subjecting the human body to influances or situation for witch evolution ...did not prepare it is usually detrimental to health."

Evolution didn't prepare us for wearing clothes, taking showers, or cooking our food either. Does that mean they cause cancer as well?


RE: really???
By cputeq on 4/1/2008 2:17:51 AM , Rating: 2
Don't be obtuse. You know very well that's a fallacious argument.

Wearing "things", getting wet, and applying heat to one's food (all things possible in nature) are hardly comparable with having a small, portable source of EMR in close proximity to one's head hours at a time.

While I agree with your general stance that this doctor's assertions should be taken with a large grain of salt (as with any small-focus research results), vacuous responses like this should probably be left by the wayside.


RE: really???
By masher2 (blog) on 4/1/2008 11:22:08 AM , Rating: 2
The fallacious argument here is the belief that anything "unnatural" must automatically cause cancer. And point in fact, there's far more evidence of increased cancer risk from our dietary changes (such as eating large amounts of cooked meat) than there is from cell phones.


RE: really???
By ikkeman on 4/1/2008 2:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
I never claimed it causes cancer - only that it changes your body - usually in a non preferable way.

Wearing clothig probably has something to do with our nakedness conpared to other mammels/apes. Cooking our food results in a verry weak resistance - your intestinal track is basically no different from that of a chimp, but you'd die trying to survive on their diet.
The environment has a verry profound impact on your body - a cell phone is for some a major part of their environment.


RE: really???
By masher2 (blog) on 4/1/2008 3:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
> "I never claimed it causes cancer... "

You said, and I quote, "You know what - I think he might be right". The "he" in this case being the doctor who claims a link between cancer and cellphones.

If you misspoke and really don't believe this, then there's no need to belabor the point.


RE: really???
By mindless1 on 4/1/2008 5:40:02 AM , Rating: 3
Not quite accurate.

Yes, evolution did prepare us for wearing clothes, or didn't you notice how our ancestors had less and less body hair? It was a reactionary evolution but nevertheless...

As for taking showers, yes evolution did prepare us for getting wet but as for the soap or detergent part - it is known to dry out skin which can age it. Perhaps even then, evolution allowed those who didn't have adverse enough reactions to remain more visually appealing and find more mating opportunities.

Evolution didn't prepare us for cooking food, but evolution at the faster rate we had, did require it. Oh wait, evolution DID prepare us, in that our developing brains realized the benefits of cooking food.

The general idea about cell phones is correct. It is a stress upon the body. Would a hypothetically perfectly healthy person realize enough of a damaging effect from them to significantly change their health level? Probably not, but as a contributory factor that results in someone having a lesser level of health to the point where they might not exercise as much, might not sleep as well, might have medical bills causing more time spend working instead of focusing on other areas of personal health - there are many factors that make minor things add up to at least the sum of the parts and even more.

We humans do strive to avoid clear causes of cancer (at least some, perhaps a majority of us do), and yet it is still apparent that it is not enough, we could argue away each thing in turn as not being signifcant and it does not dismiss the fact that many do still get cancer. Is it spontaneous? Is there a more systemic genetic problem? These things should also not be ignored.

More questions, more research, a larger body of evidence is worth having. We SHOULD assume something could be harmful until it's proven otherwise - a bit similar to how you wouldn't want to just randomly eat berries found in the woods until you know what they are or at least try a small sample and wait a while. We don't have that scenario with cell phones and the longer term exposure to radiation. That shouldn't mean we take a "sky is falling" alarmist position, but on the other hand we know that even though there are background radiation levels, increasing that exposure shouldn't be casually dismissed as harmless.


RE: really???
By Cogman on 4/1/2008 3:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Yes, evolution did prepare us for wearing clothes, or didn't you notice how our ancestors had less and less body hair?"

Umm, We have less hair because we began to wear cloths, we dont wear cloths because evolution forced us to. This point is valid as the origional unnatural use of clothing should, by the ops standards, have been shunned because it might cause cancer.

"Oh wait, evolution DID prepare us, in that our developing brains realized the benefits of cooking food."

Or "developing brain" didn't realize the benifits of cooked food, It realized food tastes good. By that measure my developing brain tells me candy and sugar have the ultimate nutritional value. Dogs like chocolate, are you going to claim evolution prepaired their brains to love it because of its nutritional value? If cooked meat didn't taste better we would have cooked it in the first place, evolution had little part in that except for giving us the taste buds to determine that food has flavor.

Might I be so bold as to say that in all the research done on cellphones and cancer, a link has NEVER been discovered by a creditable source. The most you get is "While we didn't find an increase in cancer, it still might happen." So for this guy to come out and say "Cell phones are worse then smoking!"

People that say that more data might show a link are forgetting something, cell phons have been around for over 10 years now, 10 YEARS. Almost since the adoption of the cell phone the media has been trying to make it look like a cancer stick, that alone has drummed up tons of research and study into it. Don't you think that if cell phones are as big of cancer causers as people like this nut are saying we would have just a little bit more evidince in the affirmitive?

"We SHOULD assume something could be harmful until it's proven otherwise"

So then, every new product that enters the market needs to be treated as the death to humanity, even when it is based on previous technologies?

Heres a question for you, are radio, tv, wireless routers dangerous? Some of them are operating at the same frequencies as cell phones and you are exposed much more to then you might think (Think of how long you have lived your life exposed a radio signal, even before birth you had been exposed to that type of radiation.) Most people agree that all these signals don't cause any damage. Yet cell phones for whatever mysterious reason have been singled out as the cancer causers of america. It is sensationalizm at its best.

"We don't have that scenario with cell phones and the longer term exposure to radiation."

Again, might I point out... TEN FREAKING YEARS. Are people really that stupid to think that cell phones where invented yesterday? Lets not forget that weather you owned a cell phone or not, you where still being exposed to the radiation given off of the cell towers for those that did. Not only that, but areas more populated are the ones that have the highest exposer. So why aren't we dropping like flies? If ten years of CONSTENT exposure haven't raised cancer rates then I don't know what would.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki