They're classifying cell phone use as a "Group 2B" carcinogen, which means it's "possibly" carcinogenic. The most famous residents of Group 2B carcinogens are DDT, lead, and nickel.
Pickled veggies from Asia are also included. Beware the kimchi of death.
EDIT: I also want to add that this is yet another case of mass media distorting a report that is careful to identify a) that there is no causality, just correlation and b) what exactly the classification means. That headline is linkbait bullocks: that report does not conclude that "cell phone use can increase cancer risk." It essentially says, "We're acknowledging that it might. Possibly. Maybe."
It's a bit of a scare tactic to compare it to lead and DDT. Both of those are extremely harmful, but not because of their carcinogenic effects. The fact that cell phones are in their same group on some carcinogen list means essentially nothing, in fact it's not even worth mentioning. I suspect the article only does for the scare value.
If they're going to go that route, they should use scarier things. Maybe they could get rabid bears and Al Queda members listed in the same group.
Does the pickle thing correlate with epidemiology? Are there spikes in the rates of certain cancers in Asia, the way stomach cancer spikes where people eat lots of smoked fish? Because as I understand it, pickled vegetables are extremely common in Japan and Korea. Is GI cancer?
Yes, there is a correlation in epidemiology, but as far as I know, there is no mechanism identified. Also, yes, Japan has a high relative rate of stomach cancer.
Cellphones have been in wide use for twenty-something years now. Surely if there were any significant increase in the risk of cancer it'd be showing up epidemiologically?
As well as a lack of epidemiological evidence, we still don't have a plausible mechanism as to how mobile phones might cause brain cancer -- the energies involved just don't seem to be sufficient to actually do anything bad. I've seen promising students waste their PhDs on trying to figure out how mobile phones might be able to cause cancer, only to come up dry.
Incidentally, a handy hint for students (and others) choosing research topics: avoid asking those questions where one possible answer is interesting and the other one is boring. If you ask "Does x cause y, and x causing y would be a big deal whereas x being unrelated to y is completely boring, then that's not a good topic for PhD work.
Emphasis on "might". It's a hypothetical component of a mechanism, that's all. It proves that the tiny emissions from a phone do have a measurable effect, as opposed to none whatsoever. "the energies involved just don't seem to be sufficient to actually do anything bad." This statement cannot be confirmed - the energies are sufficient to do..."something". Whether it's bad or not, unknown.
> This year, The Journal of the American Medical Association reported on research from the National Institutes of Health, which found that less than an hour of cellphone use can speed up brain activity in the area closest to the phone antenna. The study was among the first and largest to document that the weak radio frequency signals from cellphones have a measurable effect on the brain. The research also offers a potential, albeit hypothetical, explanation for how low levels of nonionizing radiation could cause harm without breaking chemical bonds, possibly by triggering the formation of free radicals or an inflammatory response in the brain.
1) What it is:
"The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use."
2) What's the risk:
"Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most common and most aggressive malignant primary brain tumor in humans, involving glial cells and accounting for 52% of all parenchymal brain tumor cases and 20% of all intracranial tumors. Despite being the most prevalent form of primary brain tumor, GBMs occur in only 2–3 cases per 100,000 people in Europe and North America."
3) How much the risk increases:
"The Working Group did not quantitate the risk; however, one study of past cell phone use (up to the year 2004), showed a 40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period)."
Ehh dont worry about "Group 2B - possibly carcinogenic to humans" when there is already a list "Group 1 - The agent (mixture) is carcinogenic to humans"
This has reminded me of the great "kill or cure" site based on articles published by the Daily Mail (a shitty UK newspaper), http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/
On a less humerous note, as a child (around a decade ago) I wasn't allowed a mobile for a few years of wanting one for fear that it could cause cancer, specially when around a still-developing brain (mine). I suspect it will be a long time before anything is confirmed either way.
"When using iPhone near your body for voice calls or for wireless data transmission over a cellular network, keep iPhone at least 15 mm (5/8 inch) away from the body."
Thats nearly impossible with data pushes being sent at indefinite intervals :( So much for keeping the phone in the front jeans pockets..
This is the way I look at it, there is a major source of ionizing radiation in the sky, known to cause cancer, it's powerful enough of a source that it can make your face feel hot, yet other than the heat of the battery my face has never gotten hot from a cell phone, so before I stop using my cell phone I'd stop going outside. I'd bet that the heat from the battery is actually more dangerous than the transmitter.
That radiation source, it's call the sun and outputs about 100W / sq meter in the visible / UV spectrum of which UV is ionizing. To compare a cell phone outputs about 500 milliwatts, or about 3 orders of magnitude difference in output.
The fact that you can charge your cell phone with a small solar cell is all you need to know about the differences in radiation.
Visible light penetrates the skin rather well. That's why you can see blood vessels and bruises and strong lights through closed eyelids.
UV penetrates the skin even better, and is by far the more dangerous of the three spectra you mentioned. That's why almost all animals produce melanin - the stuff that gives our skin, hair and eyes their color. It's nature's UV blocker.
Yeah, this emphasis on cancer is strange. Since cell phone radiation is non-ionizing, I would be a lot more worried about all the potential health effects except cancer.
Good thing kids (and many non-kids) these days text instead of talking on their phones. Any idea if the radiation is decreased when holding the phone in your hand while there is no voice data going in/out? I would assume it is...
Ah, but they hide the phones under their desks, so the teacher can't see them. Hide the phones in their laps. We're breeding a generation of Luddites by allowing phone-using kids to sterilize themselves :)
Actually some worries are not about DNA damage/cancer, but mostly about demyelinisation due to the simmer cooking of the brain. Last time I checked, there still wasn't any serious public research on the topic.
Pickled veggies from Asia are also included. Beware the kimchi of death.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IARC_Group_2B_carcinoge...
EDIT: I also want to add that this is yet another case of mass media distorting a report that is careful to identify a) that there is no causality, just correlation and b) what exactly the classification means. That headline is linkbait bullocks: that report does not conclude that "cell phone use can increase cancer risk." It essentially says, "We're acknowledging that it might. Possibly. Maybe."