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

RE: Mechanism?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/31/2008 10:14:42 PM , Rating: 3
> "actuaaly, High UV exposure (excessice sunbathing) is recognized as the major cause of skin cancer..."

UV is ionizing radiation. There's no question that it can cause cancer...UVC energies run over 10 eV/photon, not that far below soft X-rays. Cell phones, though, operate below 1 Ghz, a band with a frequency hundreds of millions times lower...meaning photon energies lower by the same order of magnitude.

> "Also, EM radiation strengt reduces by you distance to the source cubed"

Eh? EM radiation follows an inverse square law, not an inverse cube. Your calculations are far off.


RE: Mechanism?
By ikkeman on 4/1/2008 2:48:42 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for assuming EM radiation radiates in 3 dimendions. If you're right the distance to experiance similar levels of radiation from a source a million times stringer would be a 1000 factor instead of 100 - 10m vs 1m.

Not so big a difference I think

I don't know about the link between ionizing capacity of radiation and cancer, but there are other health problems than only cancer.
You should see what can be done using an localized magnetic field on the brain (google TMS with Dystonia).
You can litterally induce movement in a specific bodypart throught the application of a magnetic field on the brain. That shows low energy radiation can definately impact your body.


RE: Mechanism?
By masher2 (blog) on 4/1/2008 3:12:08 PM , Rating: 3
> "Sorry for assuming EM radiation radiates in 3 dimendions"

Of course it radiates in 3 dimensions. But radiative flux follows an inverse square law because the surface area of that three-dimensional sphere which contains the wavefront grows as the square of the radius. Make sense?

> "Not so big a difference I think"

In your calculations, you assumed a distance 100X greater, which you then calculated as a signal one million times weaker. The true value is actually 10K times weaker...a large difference indeed. And, when you're talking about a signal strength of 100,000 watts versus a few milliwatts, a much stronger effect on the human body.

> "That shows low energy radiation can definately impact your body. "

Low energy radiation? First of all, its not radiation at all-- its a magnetic field. Second of all, its not low energy. TMS uses magnetic fields typically in the 25,000 gauss range. For comparison, the earth's magnetic field runs about half a gauss.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














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