Not Just For Crackpots Anymore!Now for crackpots and suckers!
Carcinogens, agents that cause cancer, are generally of two types: genotoxins and promoters.Photons have to have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds before they can be considered genotoxins, which makes the whole "you get far more EM ...." irrelevant. However, those low energy photons might be promoters (might be, but probably aren't).
Photon energy is dependent on frequency, and the higher the photon energy, the more likely there is a cancer risk. Or at least I think that's how it works...The locution "more likely" obscures the issue. In the known mechanism for causing cancers, the photon energy has to be above the threshold for making ions --- essentially, ultraviolet or higher.
Perhaps most worrisome, though, are the preliminary results of the multinational Interphone study sponsored by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, in Lyon, France. (Scientists from thirteen countries took part in the study, the United States conspicuously not among them.)and also:
Interphone researchers reported in 2008 that after a decade of cell-phone use, the chance of getting a brain tumor—specifically on the side of the head where you use the phone—goes up as much as 40 percent for adults. Interphone researchers in Israel have found that cell phones can cause tumors of the parotid gland (the salivary gland in the cheek), and an independent study in Sweden last year concluded that people who started using a cell phone before the age of 20 were five times as likely to develop a brain tumor. Another Interphone study reported a nearly 300 percent increased risk of acoustic neuroma, a tumor of the acoustic nerve.
Industry-funded studies seem to reflect the result of corporate strong-arming. Lai reviewed 350 studies and found that about half showed bioeffects from EM radiation emitted by cell phones. But when he took into consideration the funding sources for those 350 studies, the results changed dramatically. Only 25 percent of the studies paid for by the industry showed effects, compared with 75 percent of those studies that were independently funded.posted by Davenhill at 12:04 AM on March 27, 2010 [3 favorites]
All of the studies except that of Hardell and colleagues showed no association between wireless phones and brain cancer. Hardell's 2000 study showed a slightly increased risk of tumours on the same side as the phone was used, but this was based on small numbers and was not supported in the studies by Inskip and Muscat. His 2002 study, which led to 2 papers in 2002 and 2 more in 2003, showed similar findings. There was no risk for malignant tumours, but an increased risk for benign tumours. This latter finding was due to the increased risk for acoustic neuroma.Acoustic neuroma, btw, is a benign tumor with a slow growth rate.
jamjam: However, the energy necessary to break a chemical bond to promote the development of cancer and the energy necessary to cause a protein to fold into a different configuration without changing its sequence of amino acids are very very different things.That's true. But the energy carried by a microwave photon is a very different thing from either of these. Specifically, a 2 GHz photon carries roughly a thousand times less energy than the room-temperature phonons rattling around in the environment. The mechanisms that fold proteins in cells are robust against small fluctuations around room temperature; it's hard to imagine a quantum-mechanical mechanism where the protein folding is not robust against fluctuations a thousand times less energetic.
Mobile phone technology uses frequencies between 800 MHz and 3 GHz. And RFR of 2450 MHz is used in microwave cooking.What? 800Mhz and 3GHz? Where does that number come from? Looking here, there's a grouping around 2.4GHz, and 4G (ten years after the paper was written) is looking at around 2.5GHz and 2.6GHz, but mostly everything is in the 900Hz range.
It must be pointed out that the 0.1-0.5 mT magnetic field intensities used in our study are much higher than the levels most people encounter in daily life. However, they are still within the limits contained in current magnetic field exposure guidelines and can be encountered in occupational situations. For example, the International Nonionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association guidelines for maximum levels of magnetic field exposure in occupational situations are 0.5 mT for workday exposure and 5 mT for short-term exposure, whereas for the general public it is 0.1 mT for 24 hrs per day exposure and 1 mT for exposure for a few hrs per day. Regarding RFR exposure, one can get an SAR of 6-8 W/kg per gm of tissue in certain parts of the head when using a mobile phone.Ahem. I know a bait and switch when I see one. They *studied* two frequencies (60Hz and 2.45GHz). They *could* have studied 900Hz, but *didn't*. However, they sure imply that they did, because you know, cell phones *could* use this frequency.
Here is the abstract of an article which addresses the question of whether or not microwaves can cause direct, non-thermal folding of proteinsThe fact that observed folding of proteins (whatever that means, I know almost nothing about the biological aspects) is non-thermal has been well established throughout this thread.
« Older Daniel Leonard Everett is a linguistics professor ... | We saw a post about the Little... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by shoesfullofdust at 9:13 PM on March 26, 2010 [1 favorite]