[kwlug-disc] To WIFI or not to WIFI

Thu Sep 5 22:31:53 EDT 2024

There is ample evidence to mistrust the National Post article.

Here are the first 3 hits I got in a Google Scholar search for cellphone use + brain cancer. All 3 find a correlation between cell phone use and brain cancer.

 1. "Mobile phone radiation causes brain tumors and should be classified as a probable human carcinogen" https://www.spandidos-publications.com/ijo/46/5/1865
 2. "Cell phones and brain tumors: a review including the long-term epidemiologic data" [The results indicate that using a cell phone for ≥10 years approximately doubles the risk of being diagnosed with a brain tumor on the same (“ipsilateral”) side of the head as that preferred for cell phone use. The data achieve statistical significance for glioma <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/ganglioglioma> and acoustic neuroma <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/acoustic-neuroma> but not for meningioma <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/meningioma>.] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0090301909001451
 3. "Ionizing radiation, cellular telephones and the risk for brain tumours" [Ipsilateral (same side) use of a cellular telephone increased the risk of tumours in the temporal, temporoparietal and occipital areas, with OR 2.42, 95% CI 0.97–6.05 (i.e. the anatomical areas with highest exposure to microwaves from a mobile phone).] https://journals.lww.com/eurjcancerprev/abstract/2001/12000/ionizing_radiation,_cellular_telephones_and_the.7.aspx

Another google scholar search with slightly different terms gave this as the first hit:
 1. "Risk of Brain Tumors From Wireless Phone Use"
- "Independent research by a number of investigations has suggested a link between brain tumors and cell phone use"
- "Most negative studies have been substantially funded by the cell phone industry"
- "A study discovered remarkable differences between the independent research and the industry-funded research in favor of industry interests. By falsifying the evidence, the latter showed that the radiation could protect against tumors."
https://journals.lww.com/jcat/fulltext/2010/11000/Risk_of_Brain_Tumors_From_Wireless_Phone_Use.1.aspx

Here is the WHO study referred to by the National Post.
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024001387 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024001387?via%3Dihub>

Here is a response to this study.
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933

We write to point out serious methodological problems with the Cohort Study <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/cohort-analysis> on Mobile Phones and Health (COSMOS) brain tumor risk paper (Feychting et al., 2024 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933#b0055>). Because of these flaws, the study does not provide reliable estimates of the risks of tumors associated with exposure to mobile phone radio frequency radiation (RFR). This paper which summarizes interim results from this 25-plus year cohort study (Schüz et al., 2011 <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933#b0115>) demonstrates many of the overall study’s shortcomings.

Doug.

On Thu, Sep 5, 2024, at 3:49 PM, Jon Thiele wrote:
> https://nationalpost.com/health/what-who-review-says-about-cellphone-use-and-brain-cancer
> 
> On Wed, Sep 4, 2024 at 6:24 PM Doug Moen <doug at moens.org> wrote:
>> __
>> As I mentioned earlier, my friend got brain cancer from a cell phone, beyond reasonable doubt. It was hushed up via a settlement with the vendor, which was a good deal for my friend, I'm happy he got that settlement after suffering a life changing injury. That's the only evidence I have in hand. No doubt there are other cases, but it would be hard to discover and verify them. If these cases are routinely hushed up, then they wouldn't appear in the data of scientific studies, which would skew the results. The tobacco industry was able to suppress the link between cigarettes and lung cancer for decades. It wouldn't be surprising if the same thing was happening again, considering the economic incentives.
>> 
>> Factors that seem relevant:
>> * The amount of power being radiated at the source.
>> * The distance of the radio source from your brain. Remember the power of the radio signal diminishes with the square of the distance from the source. One meter away is 10,000 less power than one centimeter away.
>> * The duration of the exposure.
>> * It's likely that different frequencies have different biological effects, but I have little information on that. Ionizing vs non-ionizing is an important distinction. Microwave frequencies are particularly good at heating water and cooking organic tissue. But what else?
>> * The threat model used for regulating cell phone radiation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate
>> 
>> I don't have numbers right now for how much power my cell phone radiates at its antenna, vs how much power my wifi base station or laptop wifi card radiates at its antenna, but I would guess that the cell phone radiates at a higher power, since it has to communicate with a cell phone tower, which is much further away than my laptop is from my wifi. Also, if your cell phone is 1 cm from your brain while you use it, whereas your laptop wifi anntenna is 50 cm from your brain, then the laptop's emissions are attenuated by a factor of 50² = 2500 compared to the phone, multiplied by the power difference. The laptop is a lot less dangerous than the phone. I leave the wifi running all the time when I use a laptop. My cell phone is turned on all the time too, and I have the phone in my pocket for a larger portion of the day than the amount of time I use a laptop. This is another factor making the phone riskier.
>> 
>> To reduce the risk, I keep it in a thigh pocket far from my brain. And I keep it in airplane mode as much as possible. I assume that RF injury to my thigh muscles are a lot less of a problem for me than RF injury to my brain. Also I use speakerphone when possible, instead of holding the phone to my head.
>> 
>> Doug.
>> 
>> On Wed, Sep 4, 2024, at 4:23 PM, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 3, 2024 at 11:36 PM Steve Izma <sizma at golden.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Okay, I worded it poorly. I was irritated that the issue of
>>>> safety was diverted into a narrow discussion of brain cancer, as
>>>> if that was the only issue to consider.
>>>> 
>>>> Doug's message (the above link) only mentioned brain cancer as an
>>>> example, but his message was essentially about broader health
>>>> concerns, which included what I thought was good commentary on
>>>> the interaction of several factors on biological injury. You
>>>> can't look at just one of them.
>>> 
>>> What are the broader health concerns of RF and what is the evidence
>>> for them?
>>> 
>>> Here is what Health Canada says about WiFi (which is what started the thread):
>>> 
>>>> Based on the current scientific evidence the level of radiofrequency EMF emitted from Wi-Fi devices *is not* harmful to health.
>>> 
>>> Note the sources they cite:
>>>  • World Health Organization
>>>  • U.K. Health Security Agency
>>>  • Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
>>>  • International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
>>> 
>>> https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/health-risks-safety/radiation/everyday-things-emit-radiation/wi-fi.html
>>> 
>>> Here is another study that is wider (mobile phones as well as WiFi).
>>> 
>>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9287836/
>>> 
>>> The conclusion:
>>>> The only evidence-based biological effects of exposure to RF EMF in the frequency range of 300 kHz – 300 GHz – which includes mobile phones, mobile phone base stations, and Wi-Fi networks – are thermal effects. However, the health risks associated with temperature rise are virtually null with normal Wi-Fi use, and even with the use of a mobile phone next to the head.
>>>> As for non-thermal effects, scientific evidence is insufficient and inconsistent. Present data do not provide clear evidence of adverse effects in humans. Further research based on much more precise dosimetry procedures and protocols supported by simulations of RF field distribution inside the biological tissue is needed.
>>>> 
>>>> To conclude, human exposure to Wi-Fi RF fields, including exposure of children in schools, is very low and, in most cases lower than to other EMF sources in the environment. With this in mind, we, children and adults alike, should be following the practical advice to monitor and limit the use of Wi-Fi and mobile technology, as RF fields have become an unavoidable environment in and with which we have to live. There are almost no places on the Earth not covered with some of the RF fields. We have to monitor the ones which are man-made and research their possible impact on human and non-human genetic and physiological structure.
>>>> 
>>> If there is evidence to the contrary, where is it, and was it scrutinized by subject matter experts?
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> kwlug-disc mailing list
>>> To unsubscribe, send an email to kwlug-disc-leave at kwlug.org
>>> with the subject "unsubscribe", or email
>>> kwlug-disc-owner at kwlug.org to contact a human being.
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> kwlug-disc mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send an email to kwlug-disc-leave at kwlug.org
>> with the subject "unsubscribe", or email
>> kwlug-disc-owner at kwlug.org to contact a human being.
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send an email to kwlug-disc-leave at kwlug.org
> with the subject "unsubscribe", or email
> kwlug-disc-owner at kwlug.org to contact a human being.
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20240905/bac7dfed/attachment-0001.htm>