Posts
Yet another article has appeared about the link between cell phones and cancer. The director of the Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Dr. Ronald B. Herberman, issused a warning to his faculty and staff, recommending that they limit their cell phone use. Especially children.
He based his recommendation on some unpublished research, and he's using the precautionary principle to guide his thinking.
Dr. Ronald B. Herberman said, "Really at the heart of my concern is that we shouldn't wait for a definitive study to come out, but err on the side of being safe rather than sorry."
Well put.
His advice? Children should only use cell phones during an emergency because their brains are still developing. He also suggests that adults keep their heads away from cell phones and use the speakerphone function or a hands-free device.
That is direct, clear and counter to what most Americans are doing. I certainly don't use my cell phone a great deal, but I am concerned with my increased usage this summer, and what my exposure might be. And I am very concerned about the million of teenagers and children using cell phones everyday.
Click here to see more research, articles, recommendations and analysis about cell phones and cancer.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Another Scientist Raises the Alarm about Cell Phones and Cancer-
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Better safe than sorry. Fear clouding judgement. Trust the lab coat if they say something is dangerous.
Usually with these hunches, there's a sensible mechanism proposed, like benzene in sunblock. On what level does this mobile phone-cancer scare make sense? What's the analogy or precedent for radio waves causing cancer? Maybe I missed that.
People make a lot of assumptions, pretending they are experts, after reading a newspaper article for example. The problem with the better-safe-than-sorry argument is that it ignores the gossip and rumor nature of what passes for reasoning -- it assumes that we know what's safe and how to not be sorry later. Are all the laptop pundits really qualified to comment on the studies? I'm not. Does the average guy or gal even have a good appreciation what's important to understand, even if they or the newspaper reporter read the primary lit? Newspaper articles pretend to have an expert gather the important information from qualified and credible sources, but all they do is set you up for making uninformed yet confident decisions. Sometimes you don't know what you don't know, and you're still confident as hell. "People who harbor strong convictions without evidence belong at the margins of our societies, not in our halls of power." - Sam Harris
As for the doctor's warning, there are no hunches in science. They're called unproven or even unresearched hypotheses -- "guesses" in plain English. We simply do not know, either way, not one bit. We have not one reason to suspect that the hypothesis is true or not, no reason to be afraid or cautious. Not knowing does not support either hunch -- that they're safe or that they're deadly. Accept that in this case we do have some limited information that they're safe. What reason is fueling the doubt? It's incumbent on someone -- some qualified someone -- to help the everyday folk, like me, understand what those studies of limited scope and limited claims actually say. People always hear what they already believe; they celebrate good news with abandon and take bad news with a grain of salt, like oil companies and global warming, or fishermen versus environmental scientists and biological oceanographers.
More importantly, is there even a reason to worry here? Is the increase of the order that one might see from differences among water supplies, or from sleeping more or less, or from genetic variability in the population, or from chemicals in skittles, or from something else that we haven't guessed (background variability)? And in physics, either radio waves interact with cells and chemicals or they don't. This is a question for the physics lit, and doctors are not reading physics lit. Maybe we should ask a physicist.
I'll quote The Onion (satire) regarding mercury and autism: "I am unmoved by these findings. The amount of scientific evidence I've made up in my mind is too significant to refute." Sometimes there are not two sides, and other times you juxtapose two sides of different credibility, like science and gossip -- it's like comparing apples and imaginary apples. Jenny McCarthy's in lab coats, one and all, but more dangerous.
I try to make good decisions for my wife and daughter, but sometimes there really is no reason to be worried, and energy is better spent keeping them away from processed food, and personal care products with carcinogens, and banned substances in furniture and infant car seats, and... I post this as anonymous because I am not interested in any follow-up in this thread. It's not about being angry. I read this blog. I'm with you guys most of the time, but let's not get to excited that our decisions are any more informed than they really are. If my opinions are silly, why not yours? If you can easily see what i don't know I'm missing, what about you?
Hello Anonymous,
Thanks for your comments. And I know you didn't want a follow up but I am going to write one anyway!
I do appreciate your thoughts- it is certainly overwhelming to read the news and make decisions for a family today. And I am not considering myself an expert, by any stretch. I'm just trying to do the best that I can with the resources I have. I do read, and reflect, and comment here, but no, I am not proclaiming to know any more than anyone else. And I don't mean to insight fear, only pass along information, perspective and tips. Am I still going to use my cell phone? Yes. Will I try to use it less? Yes. Will I let my daughters play with mine? No, not any more. Just as a precaution.
Science sometimes takes way too long to prove things definitively. Take a look at how long pregnant women were drinking and smoking, without knowing the harm they were doing, among many other examples. I'm just not going to risk it, if given the choice. Others may make other choices and that's fine for them. It is just good if folks are informed, I think.
And you bet- we all need to prioritize. You'll go crazy with all this! I agree with your goals for your family and try to do the same with mine, with nutrition, and chemicals, etc.
You'll find the science behind the radiation in cell phones in the articles I link here. I don't paraphrase that-- I leave it up to the scientists. You can check it out and make your own conclusions.
Something tells me we'll be hearing a lot more about this issue in the weeks to come.
Thanks for reading the blog. And please do keep in mind I am just a parent trying to make the best decisions I can for my family and offering a forum in this blog to share information, tips, and my experience, and for others like yourself to share as well.
I am glad you posted on this. I had heard something about this previously, and I would not be surprised if cell phones really do harm children (and adults). It is completely unnatural but it is certainly a modern day convenience in many circumstances.
I have been visiting your blog lately. I had discovered it a couple months ago and recently re-discovered it and have it bookmarked now so I don't lose it again! The Nut-Free Mom has "tagged" me recently, and in the spirit of blogging fun, I am "tagging" you. I enjoy reading your blog and think you cover interesting topics.
You can find the rules for this game of "blog tag" on Food Allergy Buzz, my blog.
Have a great weekend!
Post a Comment