[ RadSafe ] Cellphone & Cancer Article

Tue Aug 10 05:28:55 CDT 2010

I have followed the EMF (wide interpretation) issue quite closely over the past 10-15 years or so and found the article well worth reading as a review of the encountered problems etc.

Regarding my background, affiliations etc, I give some of that below but any of my comments or opinions are my personal reflections without any kind of endorsement of approval by anyone else.

Bjorn Cedervall

PhD, Associate Professor (Medical Radiation Biology, Faculty of Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm)
PhD work: DNA repair following exposure to ionizing radiation and other agents - relation to differences in individual radiosensitivity (tumor & normal tissues). Topic for assoc. professorship: Hypoxia of tumors - problems and challenges in radiotherapy.
MSc (Theoretical Chemistry: Biochemistry and Nuclear Chemistry, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm)
Vattenfall Power Consultant AB (Nuclear Safety, Radiation risk analysis etc)

I have been employed by Vattenfall since 1984 (Radiation Specialist since 1987) and employed by Karolinska Institutet since 1988.
I have been involved in radiation issues in the academic sense since 1975 but actually played with Co-60 (low activity) and X-ray tubes already around 1966 and onwords (high school fun).
I will not include this information in every future RadSafers posting but expect to repeat it perhaps 3-4 times per year.
-----

> To: doug.huffman at wildblue.net; radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> From: blreider at aol.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 00:22:21 -0400
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cellphone & Cancer Article
> 
> 
> I actually thought that for a lay article the author did a reasonable job of discussing the political issues as well as the problems with epidemiological studies. Is providing a discussion really a fault? So many authors would pick the answer they want based on fear or belief as you said rather than evaluating data. This author here has stayed away from that. 
> 
> The Health Physics Society fact sheet on cellphones http://hps.org/documents/mobiletelephonefactsheet.pdf states: "Investigations into possible health effects of mobile phones will continue into the future, and it will be especially important to identify if there are any adverse effects in long-term users or children. The available evidence does not show that the use of mobile phones or exposure to emissions from their base stations causes brain cancer or any other health effect." 
> 
> People who have not studied radiation effects know that some radiation is harmful and can't perform the type of evaluations some of us can. If all radiation were harmless there would be no need for the field of Health Physics. Perhaps it would be worthwhile for one of our HPs or physicists versed in nonionizing radiation of the wavelengths in question to provide a response in clear terms stating why there are no effects expected. Long ago I went to a fabulous seminar at Yale about magnetic fields and the cellular mechanisms supporting the conclusion that living under power lines does not increase cancer rates in animals (humans). It was easy to understand and to explain. Here in two sentences is the conclusion that I remember: The cell membrane has huge microscopic local magnetic fields than power lines and so the magnetic field added from power lines is insignificant. Therefore it is impossible that magnetic fields from power lines have any effect on cancer rates. 
> 
> Barbara Reider, CHP
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Huffman <doug.huffman at wildblue.net>
> To: radsafe <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
> Sent: Mon, Aug 9, 2010 7:06 pm
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Cellphone & Cancer Article
> 
> 
> Newsweak? It's for emotional impact, a.k.a. hysteria.
> Cellphone correlation with cancer is THE epitome of "research until the 
> esired conclusions are reached." Well, maybe that's caffeine but still 
> he point is made.
> On 8/9/2010 17:54, blreider at aol.com wrote:
> 
> Not to bring up the issue of cell phone use and cancer again but...
> 
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/05/will-this-phone-kill-you.html
> 
> One of the comments is something that I also thought of when reading the 
> rticle. Does anyone know why some of the studies used breast cancer as a 
> enchmark for doing cell phone research?
> 
> Barbara Reider, CHP
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________
> ou are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
> adSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
> ttp://health.phys.iit.edu
> 
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu