• The Economist reports cellphones don't cause cancer


    Where does a cellphone user turn to nowadays to find out facts about the risks of using a cellphone? With high cellphone usage being rather new, compared to the time that has been put toward research, there has sprung a number of conflicting reports on what the dangers, benefits, ect, can be.

    According to a report issued late last month by the World Health Organization, "radio frequency electromagnetic fields" are "possibly carcinogenic to humans based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer associated with wireless phone use." The Economist has published a response column dismissing the report as overblown. They contend:

    No matter how powerful the transmitter, radio waves simply cannot produce ionising radiation. Only gamma rays, X-rays and extreme ultra-violet waves, which operate in the far (ie, high-frequency) end of the electromagnetic spectrum, along with fission fragments and other particles from within an atom, and cosmic rays (those particles' equivalents from outer space) are energetic enough to knock electrons off other atoms to break chemical bonds and produce dangerous molecules called free radicals. It is these highly reactive free radicals that damage a person’s DNA, causing mutation, radiation sickness, cancer and death, depending on the dose.
    We have even heard reports that cellphone radiation can actually be good for you based on studies dealing with Alzheimer's disease. So where does one turn to get credible information about what reports are true? At this point, only time will tell as research is given the proper amount of information to give some empirical data. Have any reports/theories of your own?

    This article was originally published in forum thread: The Economist reports cellphones don't cause cancer started by Joe Jerde View original post

    comments powered by Disqus