digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About
See the original image at popsci.com

Cellphone users may be 50% more likely to get brain tumors

popsci.com — Israeli researchers in the study found that regular cellphones users are a whopping 50 percent more likely than non-users to get brain tumors. Another Interphone study looking at the UK and Scandinavia found a 40 percent greater tumor risk in people who've used cellphones for over 10 years.

Who dugg this? Made popular Dec 24, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

112 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • rawnzilla, on 12/24/2008, -1/+96Wow, I gotta call all my friends and tell them about this.
  • scyphozoa, on 12/24/2008, -1/+47yeah and what about receiving all those calls in my pocket, right next to my balls :(
  • Farmer77, on 12/24/2008, -1/+41I have no friends, so I rarely use my cellphone.
    I guess loneliness isn't all that bad...

    *cries*
  • buckrogers1965, on 12/24/2008, -1/+39But... but... but... all the phone company sponsored research proved that there was no increase in tumor risk.
  • RyomaNagare, on 12/24/2008, -1/+35I use my cellphone so much, my tumors are killing my tumors.
  • Amanra, on 12/24/2008, -1/+29"Interphone defines 'regular' use as one call, once a week."

    I'd like to see a follow-up with an operational definition for "regular use" that is more reflective of how the phones are regularly used.

  • heyitsguay, on 12/24/2008, -1/+18I wish there was a link to the actual study. I'd be interested to see how it was carried out, to find results like that in the face of previous studies. Not trying to say it's necessarily incorrect, just surprising.
  • chochazel, on 12/24/2008, -2/+18The statistic is sensational and meaningless. 50% more likely than what? They need to give the chance of having a brain tumor anyway. 2 people out of every 100000 get a serious life threatening brain tumor every year (4 out of every 100000 if you include benign ones), but it doesn't make such a good headline to say that if you use a mobile phone, the chance of you getting a brain tumor rises from 0.002% to 0.003%.
    Also, if you go on holiday, only fly outbound, because if you use a plane to return as well, the chances of your plane being stuck by Elvis riding on an elephant increases by 100%.
  • Mantice, on 12/24/2008, -4/+19/me turns off his wireless wrt54gl router, locks his cellphone away and puts on a tinfoil hat
    _
    /_\
    d(-_-)b (Sorry my hat is fail)
  • thegrantman, on 12/24/2008, -3/+18It's a 50% more likely in people with brains.

    Congress,you're off the hook.
  • JasonHaley, on 12/24/2008, -0/+14It did if you read the whole article.

    Regular use is once per week, so people who use it more than that may have greater chances..but that would need another study to determine and 50% should be scary enough.
  • shaun1018, on 12/24/2008, -0/+11Just because cell phone users have brain tumors doesn't mean that the cell phones cause tumors.
    Correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation.
  • etaubeneck, on 12/24/2008, -1/+11ah crap
  • adrenalmedulla9, on 12/24/2008, -0/+10You sound like a twitterbot.

    But I trust you're just a fanfag.
  • inactive, on 12/24/2008, -0/+9Link to Interphone study and protocols used (scroll down halfway):
    http://www.iarc.fr/en/Research-Groups/Clusters-Gro ...

    Two useful links on why previous Interphone studies may have been underestimating the risks:
    http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20080612_mor ...
    http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/columns/morgan/200801 ...
  • badqat, on 12/24/2008, -21/+30I, for one, welcome my new brain tumor overlord.
  • zadadka, on 12/24/2008, -1/+10Jeez....not again !!

    No-one has presented ANY evidence yet, only "potential indicators".

    The fact is, there has not been a surge in tumour cases, and, even if there were, if the cellphone myth were true, that surge could be directly correlated to the near-exponential expansion of cellphone use over the last 20 years, and even more so over the last 10 years.
  • inactive, on 12/24/2008, -1/+9Give me your number, I'll call you and pretend I'm not your friend.
  • quii, on 12/24/2008, -4/+12*may*

    And 50% more likely on something that is very unlikely to happen is nothing to lose sleep about is it.
  • TSK05, on 12/24/2008, -0/+7Probably 500% more likely :O
  • Hilyin, on 12/24/2008, -0/+7Don't worry, your 5 neighbor's wifi will give you cancer anyway :)
  • TSK05, on 12/24/2008, -0/+7That hat was actually protecting you, tinfoil blocks RF.
  • SarahC, on 12/24/2008, -0/+6OMG! 50% of 0.000001% chance is like....... HUGE!!!!!
  • grungegbunny, on 12/24/2008, -0/+6it's not a toomah
  • eLuugy, on 12/24/2008, -2/+8but thats 50% more likely "than non users" to get brain tumor.

    Incidence Rate of Brain cancer: approx 1 in 16,000 or 0.01% or 17,000 people in US

    so you are just 50% more likely to be part of the .01% brain tumor demographic in the US.

    so most of us arent that screwed.
  • ai6891, on 12/24/2008, -0/+6Seconding what "JasonHaley" might be hinting at...you're lazy, read the whole article rather than race to try and be the first post.

    Also, what the hell is the point of a cell phone if you would only use is once per week? I'm pretty sure all of Diggnation is looking at odds over 50% assuming you make more than ONE call per week.
  • Stonekeeper, on 12/24/2008, -2/+7and to think the biggest demograph of people using mobile/cell phones is kids o.O
  • bjornski, on 12/24/2008, -1/+6Isn't it past your bedtime?
  • ayeroxor, on 12/24/2008, -1/+6Oh God, it's time for this cell phone bullcrap again.

    Sorry for the epic post, but this misinformation has to be nipped in the bud by science before our grandmothers start stammering about the rainbows in their garden sprinklers.


    Bob Park runs a weekly science newsletter called "What's New" that is generally about the latest bullcrap in science.

    Who is Bob Park? Bob Park is professor of physics and former chair of the Department of Physics at the University of Maryland. In 1983 he was recruited by astrophysicist Willie Fowler (who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics later that year) to open a Washington Office of the American Physical Society. Bob initiated a weekly report of happenings in Washington that were important to science, and with the development of the internet, the weekly report evolved into the news/editorial column What's New. For the next twenty years he divided his time between the University and the Washington Office. In 2003 he returned to the University full time. With the support of the Department of Physics of the University of Maryland, he continues to write the occasionally controversial What's New, which has developed a following that extends beyond physics. Dr. Park has also written two books based on his Washington experience: 'Voodoo Science: The Road from foolishness to Fraud' (Oxford, 2000), and 'Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science' (Princeton, 2008).

    What does Mr. Park have to say about the cellphone-cancer nonsense?

    here's a search: http://www.searchum.umd.edu/search?q=cell+phone+si ...

    But let me show you some of the gems, with the FACTS surrounded in asterisks:

    CELL PHONES AND CANCER: DOES THIS STORY SOUND FAMILIAR?
    It should, it features many of the same players who brought you the power line controversy. It began on Jan 23, 1993; a guest on Larry King Live, whose wife had died of brain cancer, was suing the cell-phone industry, claiming her cancer was caused by a cell phone: "She held it against her head, and she talked on it all the time," he said (WN 29 Jan 93). With such "evidence," story after story in the media focused on the cancer question. At that time, people still thought power lines caused cancer. The power line controversy was not put to rest until the National Cancer Institute released a definitive epidemiological study of the connection between childhood cancer and residential EMF exposure. Any link, the study concluded, is too weak to detect or to be concerned about. This week, two major studies of cell phone use and cancer were published, one by ***an industry group and one by the National Cancer Institute. Both concluded that cell phone users are no more likely than anyone else to have brain cancer.***

    or how about this:

    CELL PHONES ARE ATTACKING SPERM? SO BAN THE DAMN CELL PHONES.
    If they're not attacking sperm, ban them anyway. But there is not a chance that the reported low sperm counts among heavy cell phone users, reported at the American Society of Reproductive Medicine Conference in New Orleans on Sunday, had anything to do with cell phone radiation. ***The wavelength is far too long to have any direct chemical effect and the microwave heating from a cell phone is easily handled by the body's temperature regulating mechanism***. It's too small to affect sperm, even if you put the phone in your underpants. Ashok Agarwal of the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, studied 364 men at a fertility clinic in Mumbai, India. The real question is what they talk about for four hours a day.

    and:

    CELL-PHONE LAWSUIT: THE LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE UPHELD.
    A federal judge dismissed an $800M lawsuit filed by a Maryland neurologist who claimed his brain cancer was caused by cell phone use. There is, of course, no claim so preposterous that an expert cannot be found to vouch for it. This case rested on research by Swedish oncologist Lennart Hardell, who published a study in this month's European Journal of Cancer Prevention that found long-term users of analog cell phones were at least 30 percent more likely than nonusers to develop brain tumors. His claim was widely reported by the media. However, a review of epidemiological research on cell phone use, commissioned by the ***Swedish Radiation Protection Authority, described Hardell's study as "non-informative" and concluded that "there is no scientific evidence for a causal association between the use of cellular phones and cancer." ***

  • Speed, on 12/24/2008, -1/+5Great, but what are the raw numbers? 50% doesn't mean much when the numbers are small. Last study I saw had a similar claim, but the raw numbers were something like an increase from 0.0001% or 0.0002%. Technically, that's a 100% increase, but not significant and with numbers that small. Also it's impossible to tell if it is really cellphone usage that causes the brain tumors. Cellphone users are also more likely to use iPods or laptop computers, perhaps one of those is causing the increase, or perhaps it's a factor such as stress, since people in high stress jobs, such as lawyers may use cellphones more often than a blue-collar worker.
  • DamnMan, on 12/24/2008, -4/+8Honestly, in this day and age who the ***** are they getting as non "regular Cellphone users"?
  • britblogger, on 12/24/2008, -7/+11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _________
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ It’s a tumor!
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _,,,--~~~~~~~~--,_ . . . . ._________/
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ : : : :::: :::: :: : : : : :º ‘-, . . /. . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ :: : : :::: :::: :::: :::: : : :o : ‘-, . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . . . ,-‘ :: ::: :: : : :: :::: :::: :: : : : : :O ‘-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . . .,-‘ : :: :: :: :: :: : : : : : , : : :º :::: :::: ::’; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . .,-‘ / / : :: :: :: :: : : :::: :::-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ; . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . . /,-‘,’ :: : : : : : : : : :: :: :: : ‘-, ;; ;; ;; ;; ;; ;;| . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . . /,’,-‘ :: :: :: :: :: :: :: : ::_,-~~,_’-, ;; ;; ;; ;; | . . . . . . .
    . . . . . _/ :,’ :/ :: :: :: : : :: :: _,-‘/ : ,-‘;’-‘’’’’~-, ;; ;; ;;,’ . . . . . . . .
    . . . ,-‘ / : : : : : : ,-‘’’ : : :,--‘’ :|| /,-‘-‘--‘’’__,’’’ ;; ;,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . :/,, : : : _,-‘ --,,_ : : : ||/ /,-‘-‘x### :: ;;/ . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . / /---‘’’’ : # : : : : : | | : (O##º : :/ /-‘’ . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . /,’____ : : ‘-# : , : : : : ‘-,___,-‘,-`-,, . . . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . ‘ ) : : : :’’’’--,,--,,,,,,¯ :: ::--,,_’’-,,’’’¯ :’- :’-, . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .) : : : : : : ,, : ‘’’’~~~~’ :: :: :: :’’’’’¯ :: ,-‘ :,/ . . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .,/ /|\| | :/ / : : : : : : : ,’-, :: :: :: :: ::,--‘’ :,-‘ . . . . . . . .
    . . . . .\’|\ |/ ‘/ / :: :_--,, : , | )’; :: :: :: :,-‘’ : ,-‘ : : : , . . . . . . .
    . . . ./¯ :| | : |/ :: ::----, :/ :|/ :: :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : ‘’-,,_ . . . .
    . . ..| : : :/ ‘’-(, :: :: :: ‘’’’’~,,,,,’’ :: ,-‘’ : :,-‘ : : : : : : : : :,-‘’’\ . . . .
    . ,-‘ : : : | : : ‘’) : : :¯’’’’~-,: : ,--‘’’ : :,-‘’ : : : : : : : : : ,-‘ :¯’’’’’-,_ .
    ./ : : : : :’-, :: | :: :: :: _,,-‘’’’¯ : ,--‘’ : : : : : : : : : : : / : : : : : : :’’-,
    / : : : : : -, :¯’’’’’’’’’’’¯ : : _,,-~’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : :| : : : : : : : : :
    : : : : : : :¯’’~~~~~~’’’ : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : | : : : : : : : :
  • DeskFlyer, on 12/24/2008, -4/+8IT'S NOT A TUMOR
  • 6oo63D, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3neither did my grandfather.
  • Heiminator, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3i hope you are calling from your landline to her cell ;-)
  • ShyGuy91284, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3And Bluetooth headset users? Is there a risk other than being ridiculed or punched in the face for maybe looking like a douchebag depending on where you use it?
  • drunkenoaf, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3If I were going to be overly cynical, I'd say:

    1. If this is true, it's be just like cigarettes. Most people just ain't gonna give it up.
    2. It's a case-controlled study. I pick one person with a tumour, and try and find someone as similar as possible without one that doesn't use a mobile phone. That is _extremely_ difficult to get right and be unbiased-- who doesn't use mobile phones? Amish vegans? They might be less likely to get cancer for >1000 other reasons.

    Anyhow, the data could be skewed-- not least because of this, or their odd definition of "regular use"-- that could skew it the other way.

    Please don't interpret this as being anti-this study. It's important that research is done on this topic. But I don't think this is the definitive answer, and we need something like a Cochrane review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_Collaboratio ... to get a sensible, overall picture.
  • Kevleviathan, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3Again, everything in moderation.....
  • inactive, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3"50% of the time it works every time!"
  • RevJonathan, on 12/24/2008, -5/+8I've done extensive research on this matter and have determined it's not Lupus.
  • jeremyngu, on 12/24/2008, -1/+4seriously if you had to prevent your self from any type of cancer or other bad stuff you might as well kill your self
  • ClevelandBrown, on 12/24/2008, -0/+3I want the kind of tumor John Travolta had in Phenomenon...
  • Phoetality, on 12/24/2008, -1/+3It usually takes about 10 to 15 years for the cancer surge to appear. Remember chernobyl? Remember all the radiation that came from it?

    http://www.anaesthetist.com/icu/risk/radiation/ima ...

    Yes, there was a lot of people who died from radiation poising directly after, but It took years before the incidence of cancer erupted. I will honestly be not surprised to see a surge of brain and testicular cancer in the next 10-15 years.

    Also, just to scare you even more, WiFi is about 10 times stronger. So when you're sitting with your laptop on your lap...

    And no, I'm not a tinfoil hat wearer, I'm a research scientist, and briefly investigated this in my final year of my undergraduate honours degree.
  • itmoves, on 12/24/2008, -1/+3Title. "may be" likely? A probability of a probability?
  • dungbeetle, on 12/24/2008, -0/+2And a brain tumor isn't a way you want to go. Try watching a friend waste away and you'll know what I mean.
  • cassaffousth, on 12/24/2008, -0/+2The article is about a study that has to start yet. Do anyone read here? There is no data collected, nor conclusions.
  • LouBrown, on 12/24/2008, -0/+2Let's play it as a charade:

    My first is not an amateur anymore
    My second is a body politic, especially one constituting a nation
    My third is the fourth astrological sign in the Zodiac.
  • himself2606, on 12/24/2008, -0/+2OK, but what about the bluetooth thing in my ear while my phone is in my pants front pocket? I guess we'll have to wait another 8 years or so to hear about that, huh?
  • britblogger, on 12/24/2008, -0/+2you know he dies at the end, right?
  • Lokomis, on 12/26/2008, -0/+2"Long live the new flesh."
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 114 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...

© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.