Laws Of Physics Say Cellphones Don't Cause Cancer

Cellphones don’t cause cancer because they don’t emit enough energy to break molecular bonds inside cells, reports Scientific American. “In fact, if the bonds holding the key molecules of life together could be broken at the energy levels of cell phones, there would be no life at all because the various natural sources of energy from the environment would prevent such bonds from ever forming in the first place.”

Can You Hear Me Now? The Truth about Cell Phones and Cancer [Scientific American]

Subscribe to Ben’s posts by RSS.
Follow Ben on Twitter.
Email ben at consumerist.com

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Oranges w/ Cheese says:

    Damnit! Where’s my tinfoil hat!?

  2. TuxthePenguin says:

    But… but… my cousin’s mother’s great aunt got cancer because of…

    BURN THE BOOKS! (wait… no, that was 200 years ago)

    Those scientists at that institution once did a study on whether cell phones interfere with interpersonal relationships at their sociological studies department. See! They were paid off by the evil Cell Phone Companies!

    /sarc (did I really need this?!?)

  3. pz says:

    The airwaves have been flooded by radio waves for the past 70-80 years now. Cell phones aren’t any different, really.

    • Oranges w/ Cheese says:

      Well, except different frequencies / wavelengths would have much different results. It all depends on the transmission power really.

      • BBG says:

        Actually, it doesn’t depend on the transmission power; that was the point of the article. The wavelength (frequency) is what matters*. Go look up the photoelectric effect.

        *Primarily. Sure, if you have high enough power of microwave or IR radiation, it will do damage, because of heating.

        • guymandude says:

          You’re an idiot. When can I come over and watch you stare into a 0.5 milliwatt helium neon laser?

          • shadydentist says:

            Yeah, but it won’t give you cancer.

            • BBG says:

              Right, the point of the article is the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing EM radiation. Your HeNe laser is non-ionizing radiation.

              • AnthonyC says:

                And if you point it at my skin, it will cause no damage. At all.

                But if you focus it at my eye- which contains molecules that evolved to changed shape in response to visible light- it can and will cause damage, because the non-ionizing radiation is focuses on an extremely small and sensitive receiver, resulting in a locally high power density.

                And besides, cell phone radiation, at several GHz, has several orders of magnitude less energy per photon than a laser.

          • AnthonyC says:

            Never, because a radio transmitter is not a laser.

            A 0.5 watt laser can blind you, because despite being low power it is *focused* and *coherent* light, so it can cause damage to the body part specifically designed to be sensitive to light.

            But thanks for playing!

        • jason in boston says:

          Indeed, when the carrier would be getting ready to leave port, we would turn on the radar. The dead seagulls that littered the water had nothing to do with the wavelength. They roasted to death due to being too close to the tower. It’s the wattage that killed them.

  4. AllanG54 says:

    Maybe all those yokels will now also stop complaining that cell phone antennas are causing them to glow in the dark from radiation.

    • YouDidWhatNow? says:

      No it won’t. People are stupid, and will continue to insist on being stupid no matter how definitively you prove that they are being stupid.

    • ooeygooey says:

      Nah, I have a friend of 20+ years, PhD in CompSci, “internet millionaire,” and he’s been convinced for 10+ years that cell phones give you cancer. People will believe in ghosts and fairy tales and monsters no matter what science says.

  5. Bort says:

    this proves nothing, there could be many not understood effects caused by microwave radiation, boiling water doesn’t seem to be chemically damaged…
    cell phones could also be harmless, the point is because it does not cause one studied type of disruption, doesn’t mean it can’t cause another unfound kind.

    • sir_eccles says:

      And this is why some people won’t be convinced. Basic lack of education.

    • PanCake BuTT says:

      +100 for you sir. All things consider, ‘known’ & unknown. ♥ the time you posted too.

    • Runner says:

      lol… go get your tin foil hat. We’re talking about basic physics here. If it doesn’t generate enough energy, it doesn’t generate enough energy.

      Myself, I’m not going to be surprised if I come down with cancer. Why? You install 10Watt dishes on top of towers for 8+ years for 60+ mile PtP links and see what happens.

      Your cell phone has VERY little power. The “old” cell phones (that ran at around 900Mhz) put out SEVERAL times the amount of power.

    • iMaNcOoL says:

      Actually, it does prove something. A microwave oven puts out almost a kilowatt of energy into the so-called unchanged water. This is enough to make the water molecules vibrate faster and enough to break the hydrogen bonds holding the water in liquid form, transforming it into a gas. A cell phone, on the other hand, puts out a mere fraction of this energy, on the order of several watts.

      Not only that, but the power is a function of the inverse fourth root of the distance to the source, to the power level drops rapidly as distance increases from the handset. The article even states that the energy of the radiation emitted from phones is several orders of magnitude less than the energy in UV rays emitted by the sun- so what’s the big deal when going outside in the sunshine theoretically exposes you to more RF energy than several thousand phones?

      • BBG says:

        Oh man; science fail. You’ve at least got some idea of what’s going on in a microwave. The 1kW of power is, in fact, absorbed by the water molecules, causing an increase in temperature. However, this does not cause them to vibrate so fast that the bonds break, turning the water into a gas. Steam is still water! Still the same bonds. It is not a mix of hydrogen and oxygen gas. All that has happened is that the water has changed phase, from liquid to gas. It is chemically identical (as is ice).

        Also, as the article stated, it is not the intensity of the energy source that is important, but the frequency (or wavelength).

        • iMaNcOoL says:

          Good job at paraphrasing exactly what I said to make yourself look smarter. Or maybe you don’t know what a hydrogen bond is?

          Originality fail!

          • BBG says:

            Ah, reading fail on my part. I thought you meant hydrogen-oxygen bonds. And yes, I do know what hydrogen bonding is (why is water a liquid but hydrogen sulfide is a gas, is a classic example).

            My mistake, I was seeing some terrible science over at the Scientific American site, and in my mis-reading figured you were one of those ill-informed types. I’ll read more carefully next time.

            • tungstencoil says:

              Concur; that’s what I thought too – that you were talking about breaking the bonds that hold the hydrogen and oxygen together.

              • maztec says:

                This is all just a “theory”. It hasn’t been “proven”. If scientists believed they were right, they wouldn’t call it a “theory”. Not like God, which is true and divine. If God wanted us to have cellphones, he would have made them just like he made the Internet.

                …. I just can’t write that with a straight face….

          • moonjest says:

            I think it was just an interpretation fail. Bottom line: Increase of temperature breaks the bonds holding the molecules of water together.

      • tungstencoil says:

        Um, the fact that water turns to vapor is not the heat breaking the chemical bonds and forming hydrogen gas. It’s the water transforming state. The process to break the bonds would be fission, and the energy would be, well, a whole lot more than boiling water/steam.

        This touches on steam: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam

        This touches on breaking the bonds in water: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor

      • macruadhi says:

        I’ve searched for your claims that microwaving causes water’s, and I’m paraphrasing, bonds to be broken, releasing hydrogen gas, and I’ve found nothing like that. True, microwaves do cause water molecules to vibrate, increasing the tempurature of said water, but heating water over the eye of a stove or a fire does the same, the difference is how quickly the heating occurs. Since a microwave only heats dielectric molecules, that means you don’t have to waste energy heating the vessel in which you’ve put the water.
        And I’m no expert on the molecules which make up DNA, but I’m guessing it takes a little more than a little vibration the break organic molecular bonds.

        • AnthonyC says:

          No one claimed that a microwave breaks down water into hydrogen and oxygen; rather, the previous commentor said (corrrectly) that a microwave breaks the hydrogen bonds holding liquid water together, producing steam. “Hydrogen bond” is the chemical term for one form of *intermolecular* forces, holding separate water molecules in close proximity. As you add heat/make water molecules vibrate/break hydrogen bonds, the water heats up and becomes steam. No one mentioned hydrolysis.

    • u1itn0w2day says:

      It all depends of the criteria used in the study including the long term effects. Yeh one single exposure to cell phone transmissions might not effect the cells at a molecular level but what about repeated exposure to cell phone & other emf emitting devices.

      I find this a little hard to believe since their have been studies and experiments on using microwaves as a weapon. 60 Minutes even did a report on that several years ago. When shot at individual certain microwaves put humans into pain.

      Were the cells or test subjects old,young or ill? Were there any other factors involved like the use of anti oxidants? Did they use batteries or a power supply in a lab? Did they use old or new cell phones? Which brands? What type of circutry? What were the conditions of this particular experiment/study.

      • jeff_the_snake says:

        you’re forgetting about intensity as a factor. it’s just like how a whisper is harmless but a high volume high frequency sound can put someone in agony

    • Bort says:

      Apparently asbestos can’t cause cancer either, since there appears to be no evidence it emits enough energy to break molecular bonds inside a cell. However it is a well known carcinogen, but by the limiting logic of this cell phone study it can’t be. This is why you can’t rely on crossing off a list type conclusions.
      Again i’m not saying cell phones have any impact on cancer rates, just saying this study is not the end all and be all of the issue it purports to be.

      • iMaNcOoL says:

        Wow, talk about an irrelevant red herring. The mechanism of carcinogenesis is radically different in asbestosis than in RF-caused cancers such as melanoma. Asbestos is an indigestible fiber that irritates lung endothelial cells, causing inflammation and increases in cell division as the immune system revs up to remove it. Since it’s indigestible, the inflammation becomes chronic and the over-division of cells to replace damaged ones cause mutations leading to cancer. Also, it should be said that asbestos rarely causes cancer by itself- it’s asbestos exposure and SMOKING that causes cancer.

        How is this even similar to cancer via RF energy? RF energy can cause cancer in one way- by breaking bonds in DNA. If you can’t do it, then there’s no cancer- period.

        • cookie says:

          It’s not just about RF energy – RF pulsed frequencies interfere with a cell’s ability to communicate within itself. When a cell cannot direct it’s own internal processes, toxic waste gets backed up and cancer can be the result.

          • Powerlurker says:

            Citation needed.

            • Phineas says:

              http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100517/full/news.2010.246.html

              The funny thing is that there is a correlation between heavier cell phone use and LESS brain cancer. However, I’m not a shitty enough lay-scientist to claim cell phones reduce cancer. My mantra whenever reading a science article not in a science journal is to chant “CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION. CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION.”

          • iMaNcOoL says:

            Unless you have some evidence, that’s pure conjecture. Buzz-words like “cell’s ability to communicate” and “toxic waste” are too vague to really mean anything. How on earth does RF energy impair cell communication? Intracellular communication is not reliant on electrical processes and if RF energy can’t break bonds then it cannot change protein conformation and cannot affect these processes. I’m not denying that more research has to be carried out to look at this, but the vast body of epidemiological evidence out there indicates that cell phones and cancer are NOT linked. Whether there are molecular or other changes is up to debate.

          • shadydentist says:

            Literally, nothing in what you said actually means anything.

    • Chaosium says:

      “cell phones could also be harmless, the point is because it does not cause one studied type of disruption, doesn’t mean it can’t cause another unfound kind.”

      It’s the same kind, you imbecile.

  6. Nighthawke says:

    Then again, I never studied law.

  7. KyBash says:

    This is junk science. Using the same methodology, one could say that while lead is hazardous, the body will create a sac to isolate any large pieces of it that break through the skin, so obviously bullets can’t hurt you.

    With so many rude, inconsiderate, and idiotic cell phone users out there, I sorta-kinda wish some of them did get cancer, at least a type that’d make their ears fall off or burn out their vocal cords.

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      The International Journal of Epidemiology isn’t a junk scientific journal. Consider the
      cancer rags.

    • The cake is a lie! says:

      That is why China sells those handy cell phone jammers. ;) I never leave home without one. I’m also rarely annoyed with people talking on their cell phones. It makes my day when someone on the train busts out a phone and starts yaking on it. Bwahhahahahah!! I control the GSM! I control the CDMA!

      • RvLeshrac says:

        And the federal prison controls your ass once you get caught using it.

      • Rectilinear Propagation says:

        That’s why I start making as much noise as possible if I’m mysteriously unable to make a call. It’s a good time to re-think your ring tone choices at top volume.

      • Jay911 says:

        Hmm. Do you know that most cell phones that can be affected by jammers operate in the same frequency band used by many police, fire, and ambulance services?

        Wish I could be there when the train cop finds his radio crapping out at the same time as the guy across from you is losing cell coverage, and you with your hand in your pocket and a smirk on your face..

    • Snowblind says:

      It is not junk science, it is a sound first principle.

      Your refutation is exactly backwards. They quantified the bullet that can (possibly) kill you, then extrapolated that 1/480000 of a bullet is highly unlikely to kill you.

      (they correctly identified that you can’t prove a negative, so they put the likely positive proof in perspective)

      However, you are far more likely to be killed by a cell phone in a driver’s hand than one in your own causing cancer.

      Want to do something to save lives? Do something about drivers and cell phones.

      • KyBash says:

        They quantified only one method of damage, then used that as a straw man to discount any damage.

        My example did the same — used lead poisoning as known method of damage and discounted it.

    • Jasen says:

      So which scientific field is your degree in?

  8. StuffThingsObjects says:

    There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns; there are things we do not know we don’t know.

    • vastrightwing says:

      True. I’m willing to take the risk. Even smokers who know they are at high risk for cancer continue to smoke because they are willing to take the high risk. Me not so much. However, we’ve lived hundreds of years with EMF (natural and man made) and we still live well into our eighties with no known ill effects.

  9. vastrightwing says:

    Someone tell the guy who keeps suing people over their use of electronics and WiFi devices.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/28/nation/la-na-hometown-santa-fe28-2010mar28

  10. The cake is a lie! says:

    I used to get a kick out of people who used the hands-free devices back in the day specifically because they were worried about getting brain cancer from having the phone against their heads. I would ask them where they put the phone while they were using it so it was away from their head. Most common answers… In their shirt pocket (over their heart) or in their lap while driving. LOL Yeah, good thing you kept it away from all the vital organs. morons…

    • winnabago says:

      Not to mention the wired type of headsets usually acted like a large antenna when plugged in, spreading RF over a greater portion of the body.

  11. indeeme says:

    Read the comments on the linked article. I got about five pages in and only read three that agree with it. There’s plenty of scientific reasoning as to why the article’s wrong.

    • Mom says:

      And plenty of pseudo science about why it’s wrong, too. The trick is distinguishing which is which.

      • Jasen says:

        The real trick is waiting for those who are actually educated in the fields in question to review the study and its data, and see what they have to say. And then to see if unrelated studies agree with these results or not.

        I do love how many random internet scientists love to give their expert opinions on the science behind the studies though. I guess that Biology 101 they took in college is all it takes to peer review technical data in random scientific fields. Who knew?

  12. SkokieGuy says:

    The study looked at (2) types of cancer and matched them up to self-reported cell-phone usage. Obviously, there are many types of cancer.

    It is merely one limited study. How old were the participants? What age when they first started using cellphones? If you’re in your 30′s or 40′s, your first exposure was as an adult. What about the current generation that began cellphone use in grade school, during years when the body is still developing?

    Here’s a study that found a 50% increased risk, but the cancer that was more prevalent, wasn’t one of the the two looked at by this newer study.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080214144349.htm

    • mojomarc says:

      Seems to be a significant selection bias in this one, even by the authors’ own admissions. Of course, that is a big issue with a lot of self-reported studies, which means we have to look at the overall body of evidence, of which the study cited in the original article is but the latest. It also seems to have the most power, and the authors there conclude far differently with a 12,000 user study compared to the much smaller one you cite.

  13. sp00nix says:

    i got a 100w antenna in my yard and all my molecules are still in one piece.

  14. The hand that feeds, now with more bacon says:

    I’ve been telling people this for years and no one ever seems to believe me! Nevermind my advanced degree in nuclear physics.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      I never believed cell phones would give you cancer. To me that was right up there with microwave ovens will cook you if you stand in front of them.

    • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

      Science? In my Internets?

      It’s less common than you think.

    • HogwartsProfessor says:

      I never believed cell phones would give you cancer. To me that was right up there with microwave ovens will cook you if you stand in front of them.

      • ScandalMgr says:

        An engineer I worked with developed cataracts after only a couple years working with a glue-lam wood beam curing microwave.

  15. cookie says:

    This is a diversion. The issue is not with the amount of energy a cell phone gives off – the real problem is that the microwave pulse frequencies of a cell phone disrupts cell function.

    It’s basically like an army of soldiers with all lines of communications cut. What happens? It will soon descend into chaos as it would be virtually impossible to coordinate activities among thousands of soldiers. Likewise, a cellular phone signal can interfere with a biological cell’s ability to communicate within itself, and break down into a chaos of activity, which in turn, can cause cancer.

    • Jasen says:

      Do you have any peer-reviewed references for these claims?

      And the fact that you refer to it as “diversion” makes me think you’re one of those conspiracy nutters. Did you read this on a site that also had information on the moon hoax and the 911 coverup?

      • cookie says:

        Cell phone industry SHILL alert! #1: When you can’t attack the message, you attack the messenger, hmm? & #2. Why must I do your research for you? Look up the research of Dr. George Carlo.

        • Rectilinear Propagation says:

          Why must I do your research for you?

          It’s your research because you’re the one making the claim. If you’re going to say that X is true then you need to provide proof of X. It’s not a personal attack to say that you need to back up your claims.

        • Jasen says:

          Conspiracy nut alert #umpteen!
          You made some outlandish claims, and didn’t provide any data to back them up. On top of that, you alluded to some kind of diversion to cover up some truth that only you know.

          So calling you out on being a retard makes me a shill?
          Wonderful. I’m a shill for the anti-retardation coalition.

        • mojomarc says:

          If you’re going to do an argument from authority (a nice logical fallacy, btw), you probably should know that your buddy Dr. Carlo was a shill for Biopro, a company that claimed the ability to do EMF radiation “harmonization,” which was complete and utter woo. Granted, he finally distanced himself from them, but the fact that he would shill for this sort of product for several years before doing so probably says a lot about his grasp of the science.

          As for your theory that cell phone EMF can cause the cells to behave that way (I’m still not sure I understand your analogy to soldiers. Is the cell a soldier, or do the soldiers make up the cell?), can you explain the mechanism behind this without resorting to an analogy that may or may not apply? After all, the Scientific American article cites “physicist Bernard Leikind in a technical article in Skeptic magazine (Vol. 15, No. 4), known carcinogens such as x-rays, gamma rays and UV rays have energies greater than 480 kilojoules per mole (kJ/mole), which is enough to break chemical bonds. Green-light photons hold 240 kJ/mole of energy, which is enough to bend (but not break) the rhodopsin molecules in our retinas that trigger our photosensitive rod cells to fire. A cell phone generates radiation of less than 0.001 kJ/mole. That is 480,000 times weaker than UV rays and 240,000 times weaker than green light!” It then goes on to explain that if the amount of radiation in cell phones were as powerful to cell activity as you claim, there wouldn’t be any life on Earth itself. So please, cookie–provide a mechanism for how this could work, and please show some significant studies not involving someone of such dubious capabilities as Dr. Carlo.

        • Chaosium says:

          There is no actual research, just a haphazard collection of anecdotes.

    • Alvis says:

      Cells communicate via chemical signals, not radio waves.

    • Chaosium says:

      “Likewise, a cellular phone signal can interfere with a biological cell’s ability to communicate within itself, and break down into a chaos of activity, which in turn, can cause cancer.”

      Take some basic science classes, thanks. Very basic ones should fix you.

  16. dush says:

    Radio waves, microwaves, television signals, radar, xrays, cell phones, wireless anything.
    They are all destroying us molecule by molecule!!

  17. Moosehawk says:

    I was looking through the comments of some huffington post article about how they definitively found that microwave radiation causes cancer (lol), and some commenter said how they always got so sick when someone used a cell phone in the same room as them that they’d have to leave.

    Someone should do a study on the affect of mainstream media on the general public.

    • rekoil says:

      I remember a recent news story about residents near a newly-built cellphone tower complaining of unexplained maladies that they were *certain* were caused by the evil RF signals now flooding their homes.

      It wasn’t until they filed a complaint with the local council (this was in the UK, IIRC) and scheduled a public hearing that the owner of the tower informed them that it had yet to be turned on.

  18. jojostix says:

    Perfect timing. My co-workers are currently discussing how both cell phones and free wi-fi networks are causing cancer. Now to show them the power of science.

  19. PsiCop says:

    If anyone thinks this will do anything to dissuade the “Chicken Littles” out there who scream and rail about carcinogenic cell phones … you’ve got another thing coming. Pesky little things like “facts” and “science” don’t matter to them. They will just dismiss this article as a product of the vast, cancer-generating cabal that wants the world to sicken and die, and whine that Sci Am is “biased” or something.

    Just like all the 9/11 Truthers who vilified Popular Mechanics for publishing their study explaining that explosives weren’t responsible for the World Trade Center towers’ collapse. And like all the Birthers who’ve condemned FactCheck as “biased” because it dared refute allegations that Obama’s birth certificate doesn’t have a raised seal.

    If anything this will only make people latch on harder to their delusions and fantasies.

  20. ShruggingGalt says:

    Ancient Egyptians didn’t have cancer, and they didn’t have cell phones.

    So therefore, cell phones cause cancer.

    As well as the internal combustion engine, pasteurized products, vaccines, prescription medicines….they all cause cancer too.

  21. banmojo says:

    Intelligent people have known this for years now. On the other hand, some of the nasty chemicals/by-products of manufacturing the phones may cause cancer (sorry chinese people)

  22. mythago says:

    You know, it’s a toss-up whether Consumerist’s science reporting is as bad as its legal reporting.

    Instead of actually looking at the study or even the abstract, we get an opinion piece by a non-scientist referring to another article ABOUT the study. If you bother to Google the study itself, you might find that the abstract said this:

    “Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation. The possible effects of long-term heavy use of mobile phones require further investigation. “

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      Consumerist likely just posts the article that gets fowarded to them. I doubt many readers are sending them links to the original study.

      • mythago says:

        Nobody sent me a link to the study either, but after a heroic ten seconds of Googling I was able to locate it.

    • Jasen says:

      Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones.
      Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones.
      Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones.

      • mythago says:

        Here, let me translate for you: “We didn’t find that cellphones cause brain cancer, but since there are suggestions that there MIGHT be a connection between heavy cellphone use and brain cancer, we should probably do more research on that issue.”

        I know, it’s as if the issue is more complicated than either ‘zero chance of brain cancer ever’ or ‘OMG phone will kill you wear your tinfoil hat’!

  23. Back to waiting, but I did get a cute dragon ear cuff says:

    To heck with these studies. I just keep an eye on my “canary in the coal mine”, my brother. Average monthly use is over 6,000 minutes with peaks of 8,000. That is not a typo, about 4 hours a work day average.

    As long as he does not get cancer, I am not worried.

    • UCLAri: Allergy Sufferer says:

      That’s like using people who smoke but never get cancer as proof that smoking doesn’t cause cancer.

      Not that cell phones cause cancer, but still.

    • Chaosium says:

      “To heck with these studies. I just keep an eye on my “canary in the coal mine”, my brother.”

      Your anecdote-analogy is no less ill-informed or reliable. (Not that I think wifi “allergics” or “brain cancer” scares aren’t retarded…)

  24. VashTS says:

    It’s hard to think over exposure to cell phones do NOT cause cancer. I am pretty sure those years of study from the late 90′s on, were dead on. Cell phones cause radiation. I really dislike when someone claims, it does not emit enough radiation.

    I will believe in my common sense. Waves can cause cancer. Like the sun, like a microwave. Common sense says Cells cause cancer.

  25. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Tell that to the parents in Meaford.

    http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/10/18/wi-fi-schools.html

    “Parents are asking an elementary school in Meaford, Ont., to shut down Wi-Fi internet access over health concerns…

    The parents believe Wi-Fi at the school, which has about 350 students, is causing a number of symptoms among students, including headaches and an inability to concentrate, all of which disappear on weekends.”

  26. Poisson Process says:
  27. supersat says:

    From what I understand, cell phone radiation can’t really damage DNA the way that other radiation can. What’s less understood is the potential heating effects of cell phone radiation. Could that interfere with cell replication, leading to cancerous DNA errors? However, in the grand scheme of things, I doubt it makes much of a difference.

    • Chaosium says:

      “What’s less understood is the potential heating effects of cell phone radiation. Could that interfere with cell replication, leading to cancerous DNA errors?”

      Heat alone has never been linked to cancer, no.