• Lucid Dreaming - Dream Views




    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
    Results 1 to 25 of 39
    Like Tree8Likes

    Thread: Cellphones and Cancer: What's the Verdict?

    1. #1
      "O" will suffice. Achievements:
      1 year registered Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Gold Veteran First Class Populated Wall Tagger First Class 25000 Hall Points Vivid Dream Journal
      Oneironaut Zero's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2005
      LD Count
      20+ Years Worth
      Gender
      Location
      Central Florida
      Posts
      16,083
      Likes
      4031
      DJ Entries
      149

      Cellphones and Cancer: What's the Verdict?

      Looks like there might be some truth behind the hysteria.

      WHO says cell phone use possibly carcinogenic | Reuters

      Kinda scary, actually....
      http://i.imgur.com/Ke7qCcF.jpg
      (Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)

    2. #2
      Member
      Join Date
      Feb 2004
      Posts
      5,165
      Likes
      711
      The same level as coffee. I guess coffee drinkers who use cell phones are in big trouble. Luckily I don't use either.
      Jeff777 likes this.

    3. #3
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3084
      Enjoy your tumours, can'tbebotheredtotalkfacetofacefags.
      sloth, GavinGill and tommo like this.

    4. #4
      Haunted by entropy. Achievements:
      1 year registered Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Veteran First Class 5000 Hall Points
      sloth's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2006
      LD Count
      20 years worth
      Gender
      Location
      Deep in the woods
      Posts
      2,131
      Likes
      586
      This is nonsense.
      I spoke on a cellphone for nine hours yesterday and I snififfle snorkel poo brain tumors!

      What sombrero!?
      Last edited by Jeff777; 06-01-2011 at 02:05 AM.
      ---o--- my DCs say I'm dreamy.

    5. #5
      Wololo Achievements:
      Created Dream Journal Tagger Second Class 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV Populated Wall Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Supernova's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2009
      LD Count
      Gender
      Location
      Spiral out, keep going.
      Posts
      2,909
      Likes
      908
      DJ Entries
      10
      Hmm, perhaps now's the time to look into market applications for my lead-core cell phone cover...

    6. #6
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Reading this made me feel less paranoid about cellphones.

      What in the article made you say that there may be some truth behind the hysteria? All it says is maybe it could cause cancer, it didn't give any kind of evidence or reason why.

      The verdict's still out.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    7. #7
      "O" will suffice. Achievements:
      1 year registered Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Gold Veteran First Class Populated Wall Tagger First Class 25000 Hall Points Vivid Dream Journal
      Oneironaut Zero's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2005
      LD Count
      20+ Years Worth
      Gender
      Location
      Central Florida
      Posts
      16,083
      Likes
      4031
      DJ Entries
      149
      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      The verdict's still out.
      That is the exact reason I so deliberately used the word "might." That they have been looking into such a hot topic for so long, but are still inconclusive about it - yet concerned enough to officially label it as "possibly carcinogenic" - kind of worries me. It's one thing when you're just thinking about yourself, but when you have a 10 year old daughter (like I do), who is just about at the age where she's going to start using cellphones pretty heavily, it's something that shouldn't be completely ignored...verdict or not.
      Jeff777 likes this.
      http://i.imgur.com/Ke7qCcF.jpg
      (Or see the very best of my journal entries @ dreamwalkerchronicles.blogspot)

    8. #8
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Hmmm, I see why if you have kids. I;m not too worried though. Theres other stuff that is carcinogentic out there that people use and don't get cancer, my grandpa smoked 2 packs a day and he;s the only one of my grandparents not to die of cancer. I think as long as you stay healthy your probably gonna be ok.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    9. #9
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3084
      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Hmmm, I see why if you have kids. I;m not too worried though. Theres other stuff that is carcinogentic out there that people use and don't get cancer, my grandpa smoked 2 packs a day and he;s the only one of my grandparents not to die of cancer. I think as long as you stay healthy your probably gonna be ok.
      I know somebody who smoked and didn't get cancer = PROOF THAT SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER.

      Seriously why do people think saying stuff like this is smart? It's so inane. Only yesterday I saw somebody on DV boasting that they don't do flu jabs but they're yet to die of flu, with an insufferably smug attitude of "coincidence? I THINK NOT!".

      The natural incidence of lung cancer is pretty low, but if you smoke you have something like a 1/4 chance of dying from it. All anecdotal bullshit aside: this is the non-negotiable, statistical fact of the matter.

    10. #10
      DEATH TO FANATICS! StonedApe's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2008
      Gender
      Location
      toledo,OH
      Posts
      2,269
      Likes
      417
      DJ Entries
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by Xei View Post
      I know somebody who smoked and didn't get cancer = PROOF THAT SMOKING DOESN'T CAUSE CANCER.

      Seriously why do people think saying stuff like this is smart? It's so inane. Only yesterday I saw somebody on DV boasting that they don't do flu jabs but they're yet to die of flu, with an insufferably smug attitude of "coincidence? I THINK NOT!".

      The natural incidence of lung cancer is pretty low, but if you smoke you have something like a 1/4 chance of dying from it. All anecdotal bullshit aside: this is the non-negotiable, statistical fact of the matter.
      I didn't say it doesn't cause cancer, I said it does(is a carcinogen) and that doing something that can cause cancer doesn't mean you will get cancer. My point is that if you don't wanna get cancer, take steps that WILL protect your health like eating healthy and excercising rather than being paranoid about everything and not using your cell phone. There's a healthy way to smoke and an unhealthy way to. My grandpa wasn't healthy, but he never got cancer either.
      157 is a prime number. The next prime is 163 and the previous prime is 151, which with 157 form a sexy prime triplet. Taking the arithmetic mean of those primes yields 157, thus it is a balanced prime.

      Women and rhythm section first - Jaco Pastorious

    11. #11
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3084
      I really don't have any clue what you're trying to say. There's a healthy way to smoke? What, one which your grandfather subscribed to, I presume? By smoking 2 packs a day?

      Never get a job in the teaching profession, please.

    12. #12
      Member Photolysis's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      1,270
      Likes
      316
      This is all very premature, and given the extremely weak nature of the evidence, I would suggest that WHO are being somewhat irresponsible. The report itself admits that there's not much evidence, nor is the statistical confidence particularly high, as evidenced by the nebulous term "possibly carcinogenic", a term so vague that you could include almost anything under that label.

      Furthermore, many other devices use similar parts of the EM spectrum for their operation, several that have a far higher output than mobile phones. Not to mention there's no known mechanism by which such radiation can cause cancer, unlike ionising radiation, which can cause DNA to mutate, or chemicals such as benzene (and similar compounds) which bind to DNA and alter it.

      More research on the subject never hurts, but making these kinds of statements on such tentative evidence is not going to help.
      tommo likes this.

    13. #13
      Member nina's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2004
      Gender
      Posts
      10,788
      Likes
      2592
      DJ Entries
      17
      Quote Originally Posted by stonedape View Post
      Hmmm, I see why if you have kids. I;m not too worried though. Theres other stuff that is carcinogentic out there that people use and don't get cancer, my grandpa smoked 2 packs a day and he;s the only one of my grandparents not to die of cancer. I think as long as you stay healthy your probably gonna be ok.
      It's a game of chance. All this means is that your grandpa has incredible luck.

      Regarding the OP, it's just a good reminder not to spend too much time with your phone attached to your ear. Luckily I generally hate talking on the phone.
      Oneironaut Zero likes this.

    14. #14
      khh
      khh is offline
      Remember Achievements:
      1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      khh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Norway
      Posts
      2,482
      Likes
      1309
      There have been a lot of studies on this and they've failed conclusively show it causes cancer. So chances are it's not particularly carcinogenic, if at all. So I see no reason to worry.
      April Ryan is my friend,
      Every sorrow she can mend.
      When i visit her dark realm,
      Does it simply overwhelm.

    15. #15
      Ad absurdum Achievements:
      1 year registered 1000 Hall Points Made lots of Friends on DV Referrer Bronze Veteran First Class
      Spartiate's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jul 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Block 4500-7000
      Posts
      4,825
      Likes
      1113
      Wiki had this on its front page in the "in the news" section... until today. It seems to have vanished, interesting...

    16. #16
      Terminally Out of Phase Descensus's Avatar
      Join Date
      Nov 2006
      Gender
      Posts
      2,246
      Likes
      831
      Why I’m (still) not worried about my cell phone hurting my brain | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine
      I’m getting lots of notes from people about the latest press release from the World Health Organization, saying there is a "possible" link between cell phones and brain cancer. My first reaction was, "Seriously?" This keeps popping up every now and again, but this was the first time I had heard it from a group as big as WHO.

      The reason for that initial reaction was that I’ve read about lots of studies showing no link at all between cell phones and health issues (besides quadrupling your odds of a car accident if you drive while using your phone), so my reaction was one of fair skepticism. I’d be surprised if a strong connection had been found.

      Turns out, it seems, that’s the right call. My Discover Magazine co-blogger Ed Yong explains why on the Cancer Research UK website. Basically, the WHO put cell phones into the Group 2B category, meaning they are "possibly carcinogenic to humans". Aiiiieee! Sounds scary… except that word "possibly", it turns out, needs to be understood a little more quantitatively.

      As Ed shows, the graph showing the results from several tests investigating the links between cell phones and cancer shows that any connection is very weak, and honestly cannot be statistically distinguished from no connection at all. Of course, it’s impossible to rule it out, so there’s that word "possibly". From looking at the graph, though, I’d put the odds at being very, very low. As Ed says in his post, "It means that there is some evidence linking mobile phones to cancer, but it is too weak to make any strong conclusions."

      I poked around some news sites (like CNN and MSNBC), and while they aren’t over-hyping it, in my opinion they aren’t being entirely fair, either. The claims I’ve seen from people linking cell phones to brain cancer make it seem as if the connection is obvious, but the results from the WHO make it clear that’s not the case. There might be a connection, but if there is it’s not terribly clear. I’ll note the studies only appear to cover a time base of ten years; it’s not possible to know what happens after, say 15 or 20 years. Even then, other environmental factors dominate such studies, making teasing out a weak signal very difficult.

      You may also wish to note what other things are categorized as Group 2B possible carcinogens, including gasoline, pickled vegetables, and (GASP!) coffee.

      My opinion here is that while a link between cell phones and brain cancer cannot be ruled out, without a strong correlation and a numerical statement about the odds, it seems very unlikely to me that such a connection is something to worry about. I’m far more worried about the dingus in traffic in front of me gabbing to his friend on his phone and causing an accident than I am about me getting brain cancer from my own.
      http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/significant.png
      Last edited by BLUELINE976; 06-02-2011 at 04:38 AM.
      Oneironaut Zero likes this.
      The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended. - Frédéric Bastiat
      I try to deny myself any illusions or delusions, and I think that this perhaps entitles me to try and deny the same to others, at least as long as they refuse to keep their fantasies to themselves. - Christopher Hitchens
      Formerly known as BLUELINE976

    17. #17
      DuB
      DuB is offline
      Distinct among snowflakes DuB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Posts
      2,399
      Likes
      362
      If the waves emitted by cell phones can supposedly cause brain cancer because you hold them so close to your head... why aren't they believed to cause cancer in your ear or skin or skull? Or in your hand for that matter? Is there any biological reason to believe that brain tissue is somehow more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of cell phones than the tissues that are actually closer to the cell phone? It just doesn't add up.

    18. #18
      Dionysian stormcrow's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2010
      LD Count
      About 1 a week
      Gender
      Location
      Cirith Ungol
      Posts
      895
      Likes
      483
      DJ Entries
      3
      Quote Originally Posted by DuB View Post
      If the waves emitted by cell phones can supposedly cause brain cancer because you hold them so close to your head... why aren't they believed to cause cancer in your ear or skin or skull? Or in your hand for that matter? Is there any biological reason to believe that brain tissue is somehow more susceptible to the carcinogenic effects of cell phones than the tissues that are actually closer to the cell phone? It just doesn't add up.
      Maybe the waves from the cell phone interact with only the brain because it interacts with the electrical activity taking place in the brain?

      It is a possibility that cell phones cause cancer but what doesn't these days?

    19. #19
      DuB
      DuB is offline
      Distinct among snowflakes DuB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Posts
      2,399
      Likes
      362
      What about the electrical activity taking place in your hand muscles? What the hell does electrical activity even have to do with radio waves and cancer in the first place?

    20. #20
      Xei
      UnitedKingdom Xei is offline
      Banned
      Join Date
      Aug 2005
      Posts
      9,984
      Likes
      3084
      Mobile phones use microwaves, I believe. This actually does make the head a fraction of a degree hotter. However, it's thought that waves of this relatively large wavelength cannot cause cancers. Only shorter wavelengths, hence with higher energies, such as UV, have enough oomph to mutate your DNA upon absorption.

    21. #21
      Member Photolysis's Avatar
      Join Date
      Dec 2007
      Gender
      Posts
      1,270
      Likes
      316
      This actually does make the head a fraction of a degree hotter.
      Dielectric heating

    22. #22
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by Pan View Post
      It's a game of chance. All this means is that your grandpa has incredible luck.

      Regarding the OP, it's just a good reminder not to spend too much time with your phone attached to your ear. Luckily I generally hate talking on the phone.
      I wouldn't call it luck.
      Some people are less susceptible to cancer.

      I hate talking on the phone too! I was just saying this the other day and nobody understands it lol
      I don't really know why, but if I'm talking for longer than a minute or so I just start getting frustrated.
      Maybe it's fucking with my brain activity o.O (Joke)

      Quote Originally Posted by Oneironaut View Post
      Looks like there might be some truth behind the hysteria.

      WHO says cell phone use possibly carcinogenic | Reuters

      Kinda scary, actually....
      No.

      Most people don't understand this scientific talk.

      Anything is possible. They had two studies which said there is a very weak link, which both came from some place in Sweden, and the rest all said there is no link.
      But they still say it's possible, because anything is possible.
      They should have realised that laymen don't use this word the same way scientists do.
      They should have simply said "It's highly and incredibly unlikely and the collective evidence indicates that they do not cause cancer".

      And as the comic that blueline posted indicates, if you do enough studies, even if there is no causal link, one is going to show a very very slight link.
      They have figured out that 1/20 studies will show a slightly higher link.

    23. #23
      DuB
      DuB is offline
      Distinct among snowflakes DuB's Avatar
      Join Date
      Sep 2005
      Gender
      Posts
      2,399
      Likes
      362
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      And as the comic that blueline posted indicates, if you do enough studies, even if there is no causal link, one is going to show a very very slight link.
      They have figured out that 1/20 studies will show a slightly higher link.
      I think you missed the point of the comic. 1/20 statistical tests will be "false positives" by design, for the simple reason that 5% is the most commonly used (but ultimately arbitrary) cutoff point for determining that a set of experimental results are too unlikely to have obtained by chance alone. If we used a criterion of 10%, it would follow that 1/10 tests would be false positives. There's nothing to figure out.

    24. #24
      LD's this year: ~7 tommo's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2007
      Gender
      Location
      Melbourne
      Posts
      9,202
      Likes
      4986
      DJ Entries
      7
      Quote Originally Posted by DuB View Post
      I think you missed the point of the comic. 1/20 statistical tests will be "false positives" by design, for the simple reason that 5% is the most commonly used (but ultimately arbitrary) cutoff point for determining that a set of experimental results are too unlikely to have obtained by chance alone. If we used a criterion of 10%, it would follow that 1/10 tests would be false positives. There's nothing to figure out.
      I don't get how that differs from what I said.

      "slightly higher link" was a horrible choice of words. But besides that.

    25. #25
      khh
      khh is offline
      Remember Achievements:
      1000 Hall Points Veteran First Class
      khh's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jun 2009
      Gender
      Location
      Norway
      Posts
      2,482
      Likes
      1309
      Quote Originally Posted by tommo View Post
      I don't get how that differs from what I said.

      "slightly higher link" was a horrible choice of words. But besides that.
      When you test if some result is statistically significant, it's common to use the approach "If the probability of these results occurring by chance are 5 % or less, that means it's significant". Thus the 1/20 number isn't something that's been figured out, it's something that follows inherently from the common approach to determining what is statistically significant. Many studies will show results that are much less likely to have occurred by chance, though, so the 1/20 number isn't really accurate if selecting random studies.
      April Ryan is my friend,
      Every sorrow she can mend.
      When i visit her dark realm,
      Does it simply overwhelm.

    Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Sand, Cellphones, My husband, Walls falling Down and a Pig?
      By lynbetz in forum General Dream Discussion
      Replies: 4
      Last Post: 01-24-2010, 11:17 PM
    2. What's the verdict on masturbation?
      By lvlindless in forum General Lucid Discussion
      Replies: 35
      Last Post: 08-29-2007, 05:36 PM
    3. I Have Cancer
      By Pyrofan1 in forum The Lounge
      Replies: 2
      Last Post: 04-01-2007, 06:02 PM

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •