

Could cell phones increase your risk of cancer?
















Comments     Threshold


RE: Basic statistics
By Octoparrot on 7/25/2008 8:49:03 PM , Rating: 2

That's an old article that came out when I was in medical school. This does not prove that EM fields can directly cause carcinogenesis, but merely shows that EM fields can indeed alter the activity of one particular cellular enzyme. The question is whether such alterations in enzymatic function are significant enough to lead to aberrant cell growth, or whether other feedback mechanisms in the cell can prevent this. It would be very interesting to see the state of research on whether proto-oncogenes such as p53, or even general classes of enzymes such as tyrosine kinases (many growth factors operate this way) can have significant activity enhancement, but I'll defer to somebody who's active in the basic science field to say more.

RE: Basic statistics
By Complex Pants on 7/26/2008 8:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
Altering the function of a protein is fine, but as a Dr. you should know that cancer is the result of mutation. So, as I said above earlier, if cell phone radiation does not possess enough energy to mutate DNA, I seriously doubt that cell phones would be able to cause cancer.

While alter the function of a protein may cause a deregulation in growth, removing the cell phone would stop the growth. It would seem to me that you would also need consistent, extensive exposure to the radiation to promote a tumor to grow. And it if was a direct result of cell phone usage I would expect some bilateral development due to the fact that people do switch hand while talking.

Unilateral development of tumors would be more in line with bluetooth headset usage. I would be interest in a study exploring the use of those, consider the large number of Xobx 360 users who play games online and communicate for hours using bluetooth headsets.

RE: Basic statistics
By Complex Pants on 7/26/2008 8:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
I wish I could edit that last message...either way, I am basing the info I posted on research I did on GBM, for which I got my M.S. in neurobiology from in 2007.

RE: Basic statistics
By Octoparrot on 7/26/2008 9:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
Point well taken, but I'd be interested to know if alterations in the DNA repair framework could alter the frequency of mutation. As you point out, causing errors of metabolism will not directly lead to DNA mutation.

1) There are a number of enzymes involved in DNA replication, which would be where it might be worth looking at these studies. What happens if exonuclease/proof-reading activity is impaired?

2) You must know more than me about such things as transposons, or the RNA interference pathway, as these have been more recently understood. Given external retroviruses that piggyback the RNA & DNA machinery of the cell--is it not plausible that such a virus could have reproduction enhanced slightly if certain enzyme activities are altered? What if the frequency of disruptions to cellular DNA is increased ever so slightly--including insertion into non-coding elements that control transcription, leading to a deregulation of growth factors in one line of cells? A long chain of low probability events to be sure...but not improbable. Interesting question though whether we could ever prove this is clinically insignificant or not.

RE: Basic statistics
By Complex Pants on 7/26/2008 10:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
1) Totally true and impairing proof reading could totally be an upstream cause of tumor development.

2) Transposons may be a cause, but then since they would be present in every other cell in the body, why would cancer be limited to the brain. In theory if this was the case then just basic sunlight exposure would provide enough EM radiation to stop all sorts of enzymes in your body and I would expect tumor formation would increase greatly. I am just starting medical school and I don't have hard facts on this, but it is my belief that the blood-brain barrier is pretty effect against most types of viruses, so it would seem unlikely to me that an external virus in conjunction with cell phone radiation would cause a tumor. But as you said, it could just be a long chain of low-probability events that have occurred, which in my view boils down to bad luck. I always like to remember that getting struck by lighting has about a 1:20,000 chance of happening. It gives me a healthy perspective on things.

I also want to know why cell phone always seem to give you brain tumors, but no tumors on your skin, either on your head or hand. It would seem to me that faster dividing, less protected cells would be more susceptible to EM radiation than the slower dividing glial cells.

RE: Basic statistics
By masher2 (blog) on 7/27/2008 11:14:26 AM , Rating: 3
Skin cancer is 20X as prevalent, making for a larger statistical base which is much more resistant to spurious random associations.

Rarer conditions like brain tumors show a much smaller number in any sample population, and thus are much more susceptible to chance variations.

