# Brain tumours and phones **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 20, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753 "2010-10-20T07:04:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Paragonkid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c0e974/32.png) [@Paragonkid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paragonkid)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/1 "2010-10-20T07:04:16Z")
Right-eo, my question is this: Does using a phone actually increase the chances of getting a brain tumour? I’ve done a little research on this before and a phone shouldn’t increase the chance of getting a tumour or of getting cancer. Anyone know more about this?? ---
**Author:** ![jasg](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f0a364/32.png) [@jasg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasg)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/2 "2010-10-20T15:07:16Z")
This article might help you. > **[Can You Hear Me Now? The Truth about Cell Phones and Cancer](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-you-hear-me-now/)** > > Physics shows that cell phones cannot cause cancer ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/3 "2010-10-20T16:18:17Z")
I wrote a fairly lengthy reply on this subject in this thread last year: > **[Are Cordless phones esp. DECT 6.0 harmful?](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=516670)** > > Greetings, I just replaced my 2.4 V-tech generic cordless phone with a new Panasonic DECT 6.0 (KX-TG9333T) model that operates in the 1.93 Ghz range. The RF transmission power is 115 mW (max). When I placed the base unit near the radio which is... ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/4 "2010-10-20T22:20:09Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > I wrote a fairly lengthy reply on this subject in this thread last year: > [Are Cordless phones esp. DECT 6.0 harmful? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=516670) This statement in that post is accurate but misleading: > [@](#): > > There hasn’t been a single study yet which has stood up to peer review and follow up studies that proves any link at all between something bad (typically cancer) and either power lines or radio waves (typically meaning cell phones). While it may be true that nothing has been proven to be causative - scientists do not understand why there is a correlation between EMF’s and cancer. There is a big difference between saying “nothing is proven so it must be safe” and “nothing is proven but we do see a correlation and therefore we can not draw a conclusion one way or another yet”. From CDC: > [@](#): > > Many studies report small increases in the rate of leukemia or brain cancer in groups of people living or working in high magnetic fields. Other studies have found no such increases. The most important data come from six recent studies of workers wearing EMF monitors to measure magnetic fields. All but one study found significantly higher cancer rates for men with average workday exposures above 4 milligauss. However, the results of these studies disagree in important ways such as the type of cancer associated with EMF exposures. So scientists cannot be sure whether the increased risks are caused by EMFs or by other factors. A few preliminary studies have also associated workplace EMFs with breast cancer, and one study has reported a possible link between occupational EMF exposure and Alzheimer s disease. > > The data from all of these studies are too limited for scientists to draw conclusions. However, a national research effort is under way, and more study results are expected in a few years. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [October 20, 2010, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/5 "2010-10-20T22:28:24Z")
This staff report might prove to be of interest: [How are the microwaves in ovens different from those in cell phones? (August 28, 2003)](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2117/how-are-the-microwaves-in-ovens-different-from-those-in-cell-phones) ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/6 "2010-10-21T04:53:41Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > scientists do not understand why there is a correlation between EMF’s and cancer Scientists haven’t even proven that there is a correlation. Some studies indicate that there may be, other studies indicate that there isn’t. The largest long term study done to date indicates there isn’t any correlation at all. So, I think it would be grossly inaccurate to make the statement “nothing is proven but we do see a correlation” because we don’t see a clear correlation. You can’t say “nothing is proven so it is safe”. You either find something that proves that it is not safe, or you fail to find something that proves that it is not safe. So far, science has failed to find something that proves that it is not safe. Sure, it’s possible that it isn’t safe and science just hasn’t figured out a way to prove it yet, but after a couple of decades and a few bazillion dollars in research being thrown at the topic it’s really starting to look like there just isn’t anything to find. Also, very important to this topic is the fact that no one has yet even suggested a possible theoretical means by which this could cause cancer. Radio waves are too low in frequency to be ionizing. So, I wouldn’t say “nothing is proven so it is safe”. Instead I would say “our best guess at this point based on our current understanding of things is that it is safe”. There is however this curious correlation between close proximity to power lines and a lowered average lifespan. One of my college professors was one of the early researchers into this topic, and as he used to say, it may just be that people who choose to live healthier lifestyles simply choose not to live next to power lines. Research was just getting started on the subject when he said that, but it’s starting to look like he may have been right. ---
**Author:** ![Paragonkid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c0e974/32.png) [@Paragonkid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paragonkid)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/7 "2010-10-21T07:18:22Z")
Thanks guys 🙂 This should help a bit! ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/8 "2010-10-21T16:41:16Z")
> [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > Scientists haven’t even proven that there is a correlation. Some studies indicate that there may be, other studies indicate that there isn’t. The largest long term study done to date indicates there isn’t any correlation at all. It’s possible you are referring to phones specifically, but I was responding to your post in the other thread that you linked to which seemed to be discussing emf’s in general as you did mention the power lines, etc. I would argue that if the CDC is posting the following information, then is seems reasonable to conclude that there is probably a correlation: > [@](#): > > The most important data come from **six recent studies** of workers wearing EMF monitors to measure magnetic fields. All but one study found significantly higher cancer rates for men with average workday exposures above 4 milligauss. > [@engineer\_comp\_geek](#): > > Also, very important to this topic is the fact that no one has yet even suggested a possible theoretical means by which this could cause cancer. Radio waves are too low in frequency to be ionizing. While this is true, is ionizing radiation the only way in which mutations can occur? This is recent research showing that nanoparticles heated with an emf can cause changes in ion channels and generally control cells. I link to this because it shows that there are physical interactions going on at a low level with emf’s and the things we are made of, and that there is much to be learned about these interactions: [http://machineslikeus.com/news/magnetic-nanoparticles-scientists-remotely-control-neurons-and-animal-behavior](http://machineslikeus.com/news/magnetic-nanoparticles-scientists-remotely-control-neurons-and-animal-behavior) ---
**Author:** ![Yeah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/dbc845/32.png) [@Yeah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeah)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/9 "2010-10-22T00:18:21Z")
Low level correlations are a dime a dozen. Give me a data set with 100 variables and I’ll find all sorts of spurious correlations. In the case of the workers wearing EMF monitors, there is also a good chance of correlations resulting from residual confounding (e.g., maybe the workers were exposed to solvents in their work and the ones with greater exposure to EMFs were also more exposed to solvents). As has been said, it is hard to conclude much except that if there IS a cause and effect relationship, it must be a very weak one. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2010, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brain-tumours-and-phones/557753/10 "2010-10-22T02:40:52Z")
> [@Yeah](#): > > Low level correlations are a dime a dozen. Give me a data set with 100 variables and I’ll find all sorts of spurious correlations. In the case of the workers wearing EMF monitors, there is also a good chance of correlations resulting from residual confounding (e.g., maybe the workers were exposed to solvents in their work and the ones with greater exposure to EMFs were also more exposed to solvents). As has been said, it is hard to conclude much except that if there IS a cause and effect relationship, it must be a very weak one. Seems like 5 of 6 recent studies showing a significant increase is pretty hard to discount. How many studies and what percentage of them do you think would need to show a significant increase before we could say there is a correlation?