I read this tendentious and informal article about about one of the serious and complex issues I can imagine. Bilton first tells us that as doctors helped cigarettes in the 1940s, "in a similar vein...researchers and consumers" are now questioning whether in "several decades...wearable computers...could lead to brain tumors, cancer" and more harm to wearers. The devices at hand are identified as cellphones and the new iWatch.
Starting with this entirely illogical leap, he now moves to a survey of the experts and the research. For a expert to quote liberally, he chooses Dr. Mercola, who sells a variety of health related devices and substances on his website, and has been ordered a number of times by the FDA that his claims are illegal and he must desist.
His research survey is pretty much scattershot but agrees there is "no definitive research on the health effects of wearable computers". Thus, "we can hypothesize a bit". "Hypothesize" means something specific in science. One could call what he does speculation based on cherry picking pertinent factoids and quotes from "poring over dozens of scientific papers".
If I want to read a survey of scientific literature on this, I'd like to read one by a scientist who knows the field and accurately puts things in context and perspective.
Starting with this entirely illogical leap, he now moves to a survey of the experts and the research. For a expert to quote liberally, he chooses Dr. Mercola, who sells a variety of health related devices and substances on his website, and has been ordered a number of times by the FDA that his claims are illegal and he must desist.
His research survey is pretty much scattershot but agrees there is "no definitive research on the health effects of wearable computers". Thus, "we can hypothesize a bit". "Hypothesize" means something specific in science. One could call what he does speculation based on cherry picking pertinent factoids and quotes from "poring over dozens of scientific papers".
If I want to read a survey of scientific literature on this, I'd like to read one by a scientist who knows the field and accurately puts things in context and perspective.
11
Bluetooth and Wi-Fi both operate on the 2.4ghz wavelength. So do your cordless phones. There is another device in the house that operates on this frequency....the microwave!!!
(It is true, but irrelevant)
The true reason I wanted to comment was this:
Radiation is a scary word. People who don't understand it often hear it and assume it will mutate you into a creature from the Abyss. However there is a very important distinction that "Dr." Mercola (http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html) and this article, both fail to realize.
There is ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation are the kinds of radiation that cause cancers and tumors etc. X-Ray, nuclear decay and neutrons are examples of ionizing radiation. This type of radiation has the energy required to knock electrons off of their atoms (leaving the atom ionized).
Non-ionizing radiation (such as light, radio frequency (Including cell phones), Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc) is unable to ionize atoms. The only effect this type of radiation has on tissues is to slightly raise their temperature. If this was harmful to us in any way, heaters would be death sentences, cooked food would kill us as we ate it, and cuddles with loved ones would be like stepping into a live nuclear reactor.
So instead of worrying about non-existent health risks from your phones. Worry about cigarettes, smog, and other fumes. Worry about a sedentary lifestyle or something that actually DOES harm you.
(It is true, but irrelevant)
The true reason I wanted to comment was this:
Radiation is a scary word. People who don't understand it often hear it and assume it will mutate you into a creature from the Abyss. However there is a very important distinction that "Dr." Mercola (http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html) and this article, both fail to realize.
There is ionizing and non-ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation are the kinds of radiation that cause cancers and tumors etc. X-Ray, nuclear decay and neutrons are examples of ionizing radiation. This type of radiation has the energy required to knock electrons off of their atoms (leaving the atom ionized).
Non-ionizing radiation (such as light, radio frequency (Including cell phones), Wi-Fi, Bluetooth etc) is unable to ionize atoms. The only effect this type of radiation has on tissues is to slightly raise their temperature. If this was harmful to us in any way, heaters would be death sentences, cooked food would kill us as we ate it, and cuddles with loved ones would be like stepping into a live nuclear reactor.
So instead of worrying about non-existent health risks from your phones. Worry about cigarettes, smog, and other fumes. Worry about a sedentary lifestyle or something that actually DOES harm you.
25
This is an IDIOTIC article. First, there aren't any watches or "wearables" that have cell phone transmitters in them. ZERO, none, nada. Yet the author conflates the phone and the watch leaving a uneducated reader to fear the watch which does NOT have a phone in it. Shame New York Times! Second, in the article the author makes a second glaring error. It is not the "frequency" of the bluetooth or WiFi that reduces it's risk to humans it is the lower transmission power. Good grief. Two major glaring technical flaws in one article. Obviously, there actually isn't a "story" here without these errors to engender fear in the readers. Look, I'm a life-long New York Time reader. But this, this is trash journalism simply trading on fear. You are far far better than this. Retract this piece of trash.
31
Microwave news just published an article about a study by Alex Lerchl which "found that weak cell phone signals can promote the growth of tumors in mice." "
The World Health Organization (IARC working group) in 2011 declared radio frequency electromagnetic fields a class 2b carcinogen. Their decision was based on studies by Hardell which showed increased brain tumors in people who used cell phones. There's another study from the NIH and Brookhaven National Lab (Volkow) which showed that radiation from a 50 minute phone call can speed up glucose metabolism in the brain.
The World Health Organization (IARC working group) in 2011 declared radio frequency electromagnetic fields a class 2b carcinogen. Their decision was based on studies by Hardell which showed increased brain tumors in people who used cell phones. There's another study from the NIH and Brookhaven National Lab (Volkow) which showed that radiation from a 50 minute phone call can speed up glucose metabolism in the brain.
5
Examination of the paper linked to the claim of an increase in brain tumors shows that the evidence is not yet very strong. The paper reviews studies that compare patients with cancer to those who do not have cancer. However, such studies have problems such as patients remembering different things based on their disease. If you have brain cancer, you may start to dwell on all the times you've used your cell phone and therefore overestimate it. There may be other differences between the groups that the study doesn't measure but that explain the difference in disease rates.
So, such studies are a good start towards finding whether there's any evidence at all, but what is really needed is a prospective study that follows people who use cell phones to different degrees and then sees whether they develop different diseases 10 years later. Random assignment of subjects to conditions would be ideal, but of course that is not very practical in this case.
So, such studies are a good start towards finding whether there's any evidence at all, but what is really needed is a prospective study that follows people who use cell phones to different degrees and then sees whether they develop different diseases 10 years later. Random assignment of subjects to conditions would be ideal, but of course that is not very practical in this case.
1
I'll wager more people will be killed or injured by not paying attention to what they are doing while looking at their Apple Watch, than will die or be made sick from RF radiation caused cancers.
9
There's plenty of peer-reviewed science that raises concerns about the safety of wireless radiation. Bioinitiative.org is a place to start. One might also consider reading "Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done To Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family", by Devra Davis, the founding director of the toxicology and environmental studies board at the US National Academy of Sciences. The lobbies that support this technology are powerful enough to ruin the careers of scientists who find results that don't agree with the industry-funded study results, and this book documents some of those true stories around the evolution of scientific knowledge and study on this subject.
6
You lose your credibility when you reference Bioinitiative Report, every respected scientist (even when he claim about emf dangers never reference Bio-Report because know how flawed is and knot thaw will lose credibility immediately). This called report present a re-hashing of old science and try to make their case that we should be worried about low-level microwave radiation whats more they use many times more power than you can be exposed in normal use.
Davis sells her books etc in this side there is also big conflict of interest. You know why many so called "experts" wrote books? because they dont need be peer-review and can wrote what they want with flaws. I agree we should do research but true research no with high dose radiation. She have been seeking to soak industry and consumers for $1 per year per cellular device, which would yield $300 million annually from the US market alone (Davis wants the EU market as well). That’s quite a bit of money — who is going to administer it? I’m not interested in having my money going to the so-called “independent” scientists.
Davis sells her books etc in this side there is also big conflict of interest. You know why many so called "experts" wrote books? because they dont need be peer-review and can wrote what they want with flaws. I agree we should do research but true research no with high dose radiation. She have been seeking to soak industry and consumers for $1 per year per cellular device, which would yield $300 million annually from the US market alone (Davis wants the EU market as well). That’s quite a bit of money — who is going to administer it? I’m not interested in having my money going to the so-called “independent” scientists.
3
Thank you much for opening this important discussion. There are numerous valid peer reviewed studies showing the harm being doing both short term and long term from wifi, especially in children. This discussion needs to pick up steam before it is indeed too late.
7
Mr. Bilton's column was nonsense, for all the reasons you reported. Then, you defend his article because of its flaws.
NYT hit mongering nonsense is the new black.
NYT hit mongering nonsense is the new black.
11
There is more a health concern with people taking an article such as this seriously. It starts with a false analogy and somehow gets worse. This type of fear mongering helps generate more anti-science attitudes breeding antivaxers, alt-med silliness or other unsupported claims. It becomes very difficult to purge such attitudes from the general mindset and people typically entrench further even when proof of absurdity is provided.
If you want to stay healthy using a cell phone or future smartwatch...don't text and drive.
If you want to stay healthy using a cell phone or future smartwatch...don't text and drive.
20
Anytime you see someone use the argument, "scientists used to think. . ." you know what follows will not be a reasonable argument, but rather something abusive of science. It will be an attempt to justify pseudoscience, and this article does not disappoint.
Anyone who understands how science works would never use the argument, "scientists could be wrong," because that is already built into the philosophy of science. Nothing is beyond reproach in science. There are no sacred cows.
Cigarettes were shown to be harmful by doing science. Unfortunately, the author is not doing science. He is just trying to make the ridiculous argument that science being wrong in the past somehow bolsters his argument in the present. It does not. He has no valid argument.
His only sources are a quack physician. He cites no experts in radiation, like physicists or radiation oncologists. Pretty much anyone who understands how radiation works on a quantum level, and how it can damage DNA and cause cancer would laugh at the notion of non-ionizing radiation such as the weak microwaves emitted by smartwatches (you get a bigger dose of non-ionizing radiation standing a few seconds in the sun than an entire day of smartwatch usage) causing cancer.
If this is the kind of quality control the New York Times is doing on its articles going forward, I have to wonder if they no longer want to be the paper of record for the United States but rather are looking to compete with supermarket tabloids.
Anyone who understands how science works would never use the argument, "scientists could be wrong," because that is already built into the philosophy of science. Nothing is beyond reproach in science. There are no sacred cows.
Cigarettes were shown to be harmful by doing science. Unfortunately, the author is not doing science. He is just trying to make the ridiculous argument that science being wrong in the past somehow bolsters his argument in the present. It does not. He has no valid argument.
His only sources are a quack physician. He cites no experts in radiation, like physicists or radiation oncologists. Pretty much anyone who understands how radiation works on a quantum level, and how it can damage DNA and cause cancer would laugh at the notion of non-ionizing radiation such as the weak microwaves emitted by smartwatches (you get a bigger dose of non-ionizing radiation standing a few seconds in the sun than an entire day of smartwatch usage) causing cancer.
If this is the kind of quality control the New York Times is doing on its articles going forward, I have to wonder if they no longer want to be the paper of record for the United States but rather are looking to compete with supermarket tabloids.
19
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0062663
Even if we could accurately estimate macroscopically the amount of absorbed energy by a whole organ (e.g. by measuring an increase in temperature if any), again the biological effect depends basically on which specific bio-molecule(s) will absorb a certain amount of energy during a certain time-interval and this is impossible to discern. For example, when radiation is absorbed by lipids the damage will most likely be less than when the same amount of energy is absorbed within the same time-interval by enzymes and potentially even smaller than when absorbed by nucleic acids – especially DNA. Moreover, the situation becomes even more complicated in case that the biological effects are indirect. For example, a damage in the DNA may be due not to the energy absorbed directly by the DNA molecule but due to a conformational change in a membrane protein leading to irregular alteration of intracellular ionic concentrations [5], [6] and this in turn giving a signal for a cascade of intracellular events causing irregular release of free radicals or DNases which finally damage DNA (indirect effect).
Even if we could accurately estimate macroscopically the amount of absorbed energy by a whole organ (e.g. by measuring an increase in temperature if any), again the biological effect depends basically on which specific bio-molecule(s) will absorb a certain amount of energy during a certain time-interval and this is impossible to discern. For example, when radiation is absorbed by lipids the damage will most likely be less than when the same amount of energy is absorbed within the same time-interval by enzymes and potentially even smaller than when absorbed by nucleic acids – especially DNA. Moreover, the situation becomes even more complicated in case that the biological effects are indirect. For example, a damage in the DNA may be due not to the energy absorbed directly by the DNA molecule but due to a conformational change in a membrane protein leading to irregular alteration of intracellular ionic concentrations [5], [6] and this in turn giving a signal for a cascade of intracellular events causing irregular release of free radicals or DNases which finally damage DNA (indirect effect).
4
At the end of the day, it (bluetooth, wifi, 4G) is all just non-ionizing radiation. It can do little more than cause tissues to heat up. The heat generated, by these low powered devices, can easily be dissipated by the circulatory system.
9
http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/noi_background.htm
http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf
Norbert Hankin, Chief Scientist, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, EPA:
"The FCC's current exposure guidelines...are thermally based and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations... The FCC's exposure guideline is protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm or all mechanisms is not justified....The FCC does not claim that their exposure guidelines provide protection from exposures to which the 4W/kg SAR basis does not apply, i.e. exposures below the 4W/kg threshold level that are chronic/ prolonged and nonthermal...Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures."
http://www.emrpolicy.org/litigation/case_law/docs/noi_epa_response.pdf
Norbert Hankin, Chief Scientist, Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection Division, EPA:
"The FCC's current exposure guidelines...are thermally based and do not apply to chronic, nonthermal exposure situations... The FCC's exposure guideline is protective of effects arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization by many that the guidelines protect human beings from harm or all mechanisms is not justified....The FCC does not claim that their exposure guidelines provide protection from exposures to which the 4W/kg SAR basis does not apply, i.e. exposures below the 4W/kg threshold level that are chronic/ prolonged and nonthermal...Federal health and safety agencies have not yet developed policies concerning possible risk from long-term, nonthermal exposures."
2
Not really, but I understand the confusion. The industry studied ONLY thermal effects, yet there are many non thermal effects that cause much more damage to DNA. It depletes melatonin, GABA and damages the voltage gated calcium channels to our blood brain barrier. (Dr. Pall). This damage can be permanent, but on the short term level, it can also be debilitating causing insominia, irregular heart beat, fatigue, headaches and mood changes (Academy of Environmental medicine)
5
The laws of quantum physics show quite clearly that non-ionizing radiation can only cause thermal effects in molecules. If someone were to show otherwise, they would most likely win the Nobel Prize in physics, because we would have to rewrite every high school and college textbook on quantum mechanics.
Rather, they are studies by qualitative scientists rather than quantitative scientists who are trying to correlate cause A with effect B. Correlation does not prove causation, and at the probability level these studies use (a confidence interval of 0.95), as many as 1 out of 20 of these biological studies will show correlation between cause and effect by random chance.
Rather, they are studies by qualitative scientists rather than quantitative scientists who are trying to correlate cause A with effect B. Correlation does not prove causation, and at the probability level these studies use (a confidence interval of 0.95), as many as 1 out of 20 of these biological studies will show correlation between cause and effect by random chance.
3
The government will mandate that these devices be worn around your neck with a constricting collar controllable by any government employee or politician.
1
This article is truly insane. The watch isn't a cellphone and has no cellphone hardware whatsoever in it. There isn't even evidence that cellphones cause cancer. I can't believe any responsible editor would allow this nonsense to be published.
14
I can't believe the NYT used Dr. Mercola as a source. The guy is, if not a quack, quack-ish and of dubious credentials for a story such as this. What he is good at is self promotion and using scare tactics to sell his products. I would have expected better from the NYT. Shame.
26
If you'd like a responsible account (versus, well, fear-mongering) you should check out Phil Plait's analysis here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/03/19/wearable_tech_and_he...
19
I don't see any discussion of the body of scientific literature there. For an analysis of the peer-reviewed body of literature, see the BioInitiative Report.
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
See what the researchers and experts in this field have to say:
"The BioInitiative reports nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies) in 2014. This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies) in 2012. Studies of extremely-low frequency radiation are reported to cause nervous system effects in 90% of the 105 studies available in 2014. Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies."
http://www.bioinitiative.org/
See what the researchers and experts in this field have to say:
"The BioInitiative reports nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies) in 2014. This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies) in 2012. Studies of extremely-low frequency radiation are reported to cause nervous system effects in 90% of the 105 studies available in 2014. Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies."
4
forced to vacate my home of 35 years in nyc because a cell tower on the roof of the building made me sick. shortness of breath, dizziness,nausea, loss of voice and hearing . the FCC said there was nothing they could do.
4
This article obviously did no research on why doctors were shown recommending cigarettes in advertisements. Tobacco companies hijacked medical authority because of the growing public concern of cigarettes on health and the new mounting evidence pointing to its harmful effects. They did so by largely misrepresenting scientific evidence to back their claims. (American Journal of Public Health, “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice”, 2006)
This is definitely not "in a similar vein."
This is definitely not "in a similar vein."
12
I am sorry to inform you that this is exactly what is happening with the science on rf radiation, which is robust - tens of thousands of scientific studies over a fifty year period are being ignored. Why? "Big Wireless" is big money. The new FCC chairperson is a wireless lobbyist now appointed to regulate wireless by President Obama. The exposure limits were based on wireless industry studies conducted in the early 1990's, and with no changes to protect people since 1995. Independent science is being run over by industry, just the same as when "Big Tobacco" tried to control the message and convince everyone cigarettes were not harmful. No difference except right now the US gov't is involved in promoting wireless. The industry is the top contributor to political campaigns. Gee, could there be a connection?
4
If cell phones are so dangerous, I guess we shouldn't be carrying them around in our pockets, or on our belts then?
Stupid article.
Stupid article.
5
You are right with your first statement - we should not be carrying them around in our pockets on or belts. If you read the manufacturer's warnings in the fine print for cell phones when you buy them, you will see that. However, the article is a good start to warning the public not to buy these dangerous devices, far from stupid. It just doesn't go far enough. www.electrosmogprevention.org
4
There are far more dangerous devices that everybody uses every day. Cars for example - full of electronics emitting potentially dangerous radiation, and their exhausts emit stuff that definitely causes cancer and other health problems. Why don't we stop buying them? What about air travel and X-ray exams, which subject you to high doses of ionizing radiation? It seems to me that a potential danger for which very little evidence exists is blown out of proportion compared to the many risks that surround us all the time.
5
This is not even remotely evidence-based. You sought Dr. Mercola for advice on this??? Unbelievable. Truly disappointing work, NYT.
22
I can't believe I'm reading such speculative, pseudo-scientific garbage in the New York Times. Doctors promoted cigarettes, so we shouldn't trust science? The W.H.O. didn't come up with statistically significant evidence that cellphones are related to cancer.
22
NIck Bilton compares the risk of keeping a lithium-ion battery close to the body, to the risk of living close to power lines.
One provides small direct currents and approximately three volts. The other passes enormous alternating currents at thousands of volts. Do you think they create radically different electromagnetic fields in the environment? (Hint: yes they do.)
I've long been skeptical about the NYT's authority to write about technical topics, and this is the nail in the coffin.
One provides small direct currents and approximately three volts. The other passes enormous alternating currents at thousands of volts. Do you think they create radically different electromagnetic fields in the environment? (Hint: yes they do.)
I've long been skeptical about the NYT's authority to write about technical topics, and this is the nail in the coffin.
13
Yes, but one induces a current directly into the body...the one touching the body
3
This is not true, batteries do pass current through the body from wearable devices; the body is not part of the circuit.
2
"We have long suspected that cellphones, which give off low levels of radiation, could lead to brain tumors, cancer, disturbed blood rhythms and other health problems if held too close to the body for extended periods."
And that's how the anti-vaccine movement gained ground; by stating that "we" have all suspected this great evil....and if you don't you're naive.
And that's how the anti-vaccine movement gained ground; by stating that "we" have all suspected this great evil....and if you don't you're naive.
16
Very disappointed that the NYT would publish such a poorly researched article that misrepresents the available academic research on the matter. The author effectively uses fear and select sound bites from cherry picked sources in order to get the readers attention. I expected better journalism from the Times. Time to cancel my subscription - the Times just showed me that it has become more interested in catchy headlines than being a source of balanced and vetted information.
36
Really, NYT? For shame.
34
No one under the age of 25 is talking on a cellphone. They are too busy texting each other.
1
More ado about possibly nothing.....
4
Thanks for publishing this article. I'm planning to get an Apple Watch, and I had wondered about wearing a transmitter all day long. Nice to read a discussion with links to research and other articles.
2
Smart wrist devices use only low power Bluetooth, some maybe Wifi. This is way different than the radio used for communication of data and voice in a cell phone, much lower power. So, good job comparing apples to oranges, better to compare it with a wireless headset (Bluetooth ear dongle). Before scaring the masses, it might be a good idea getting an expert opinion on this.
15
Actually, there are studies showing tha the lower power can actually do as much harm. The problem is that industry studies only address thermal effects, where as non industry studies address ALL the physiological harm thermal and non thermal.
2
Remember the Palm Treo, a very early smartphone? If I tried to surf the web using a phone connection with that device, the joints of my fingers holding the device would ache in about five seconds.
I use, and love, an Apple smartphone. But if I put it in my front left pocket with the phone on, but wifi off, my left hip joint will ache after a while. If I switch sides, the same thing happens on the right, but less so. My solution, when I take a walk with the phone in my front pocket, is to first put it on "airplane mode" because then there will be no ache in the joint.
I've never noticed a problem in my hands with the iPhone. I've never had a problem as far as I know with the wi-fi on the iPhone.
I would be curious if any readers had the same problem with the Palm Treo, and what the explanation might be.
I use, and love, an Apple smartphone. But if I put it in my front left pocket with the phone on, but wifi off, my left hip joint will ache after a while. If I switch sides, the same thing happens on the right, but less so. My solution, when I take a walk with the phone in my front pocket, is to first put it on "airplane mode" because then there will be no ache in the joint.
I've never noticed a problem in my hands with the iPhone. I've never had a problem as far as I know with the wi-fi on the iPhone.
I would be curious if any readers had the same problem with the Palm Treo, and what the explanation might be.
5
Larry - I get the same problem with my iPhones that you describe on the Treo, they create an achy sensation whenever I have them in my pocket. I've searched online for any medical research on the subject - only to be told I must be imagining it.
2
I remember seeing something similar here:
http://archie.kumc.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2271/1144/Cell%20Phone%20I...
http://archie.kumc.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/2271/1144/Cell%20Phone%20I...
3
One of several viable mechanisms for harm:
Via the NADH oxidase and similar targets located in high density in the mitochondria membrane.
Friedman et al. ( http://www.biochemjusa.org/bj/405/0559/4050559.pdf ) has shown with a GSM signal an upregulation of the NADH oxidase
( http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/87/1/245 ) within two minutes in an exposure related manner. The upregulation leads to an increased electron transfer via the membrane border and the formation of superoxide (02 -), which is an oxygen molecule loaded with an additional (free) electron. This superoxide when not eliminated via the superoxide dismutase (SOD) will primarily join with nitrogen oxide (NO) to form peroxynitrite (ONOO-). This is called nitrosative stress and the most potent physiological chemical compound we have in our cells /body.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237348
Peroxyinitrite has a long lifetime and is therefore able to interact (destroy) cell structures within a volume of about one or two cell diameters. Targets are e.g. certain metabolism reactions like those needed for energy generation in the mitochondria. The lack of energy e.g. in certain nerve cell groups explains the wide range of symptoms reported when humans are exposed to RF/MW radiation which are reported at least since 1932 (Schliephake) like: headaches, concentration difficulties, memory problems, dizziness, fatigue, nervousness, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder etc.
Via the NADH oxidase and similar targets located in high density in the mitochondria membrane.
Friedman et al. ( http://www.biochemjusa.org/bj/405/0559/4050559.pdf ) has shown with a GSM signal an upregulation of the NADH oxidase
( http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/87/1/245 ) within two minutes in an exposure related manner. The upregulation leads to an increased electron transfer via the membrane border and the formation of superoxide (02 -), which is an oxygen molecule loaded with an additional (free) electron. This superoxide when not eliminated via the superoxide dismutase (SOD) will primarily join with nitrogen oxide (NO) to form peroxynitrite (ONOO-). This is called nitrosative stress and the most potent physiological chemical compound we have in our cells /body.
See: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237348
Peroxyinitrite has a long lifetime and is therefore able to interact (destroy) cell structures within a volume of about one or two cell diameters. Targets are e.g. certain metabolism reactions like those needed for energy generation in the mitochondria. The lack of energy e.g. in certain nerve cell groups explains the wide range of symptoms reported when humans are exposed to RF/MW radiation which are reported at least since 1932 (Schliephake) like: headaches, concentration difficulties, memory problems, dizziness, fatigue, nervousness, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder etc.
6
Toxins are all about the dosage. It's also fairly conclusive that such a tiny amount of non-ionizing radiation simply cannot have that much of an effect on the human body. (If it did, simply walking outside in the sunlight for reasonable periods would be hugely toxic.)
It doesn't help that your first citation is an "open access" journal, which tends to reduce credibility by quite a bit.
It doesn't help that your first citation is an "open access" journal, which tends to reduce credibility by quite a bit.
9
I'm agnostic on the OP main points (I do cancer research in areas similar to this but not with non-ionizing radiation) but take strong issue with your off-hand comment that open access = questionable. In this case, Biochemical Journal is an old and very well respected scientific publication that has moved into modern modes of publishing. This has nothing to do with the quality of the science presented.
3
This whole line of reasoning ignores prior probability. The only mechanism we know for DNA to be damaged is ionization or extreme heating. We know from basic high school quantum physics that microwaves (those used by the communication devices in question) are incapable of ionizing DNA and transmit at too low of power to heat the body sufficiently to cause damage.
From Planck's law (again, high school physics), we can clearly show that the amount of radiation you absorb from a transmitter of less than 1 Watt is far less than the amount of radiation you absorb from being outside on a sunny day, or even sharing a bed with your partner (or even your cat)!
From Planck's law (again, high school physics), we can clearly show that the amount of radiation you absorb from a transmitter of less than 1 Watt is far less than the amount of radiation you absorb from being outside on a sunny day, or even sharing a bed with your partner (or even your cat)!
3
in reply to Perry who writes, "... the conclusive answer to the question [regarding cell phones and cancer] is that there is no such link."
Though one cannot prove a negative, one should only properly say that there has been no definitive link established between cell phones and cancer, not that there is no such link.
Two things I would note before we can make final judgement regarding the dangers of cell phones. First, they are becoming more and more complex. Thus it may be necessary to distinguish among cell phones. More significant: in the past seventy years we have more and more become bathed in a stew of (mostly non-ionizing) radiation, as TV, microwave, computer, cell phone and other signal distributors and receivers have become ubiquitous. It would be likely that the deleterious effects of non-ionizing radiation would take substantially longer to show up than those of ionizing radiation. As significant, as far as I know there has been almost no testing done to test the synergistic effects of the individual sources. No one source alone may be potent enough to be seriously harmful, but as we add more and more proximate sources of radiation, it would be more than prudent to consider the additive effects of low level but long-term chronic exposure.
in reply to R Stein: Thanks for the additional info regarding ionizing radiation. I know that the general effects of gamma radiation were known, but was that extrapolated to x-rays either by experimentation or inference?
Though one cannot prove a negative, one should only properly say that there has been no definitive link established between cell phones and cancer, not that there is no such link.
Two things I would note before we can make final judgement regarding the dangers of cell phones. First, they are becoming more and more complex. Thus it may be necessary to distinguish among cell phones. More significant: in the past seventy years we have more and more become bathed in a stew of (mostly non-ionizing) radiation, as TV, microwave, computer, cell phone and other signal distributors and receivers have become ubiquitous. It would be likely that the deleterious effects of non-ionizing radiation would take substantially longer to show up than those of ionizing radiation. As significant, as far as I know there has been almost no testing done to test the synergistic effects of the individual sources. No one source alone may be potent enough to be seriously harmful, but as we add more and more proximate sources of radiation, it would be more than prudent to consider the additive effects of low level but long-term chronic exposure.
in reply to R Stein: Thanks for the additional info regarding ionizing radiation. I know that the general effects of gamma radiation were known, but was that extrapolated to x-rays either by experimentation or inference?
4
Though one cannot prove a negative, one should only properly say that there has been no definitive link established between cell phones and cancer, not that there is no such link. maybe check again... this is false, you can prove negative
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
X is true because there is no proof that X is false.
Excellent article and thank you to Steve for the explanation about "no link". That is industry lingo and this trillion dollar industry has a stranglehold on our government. Science has shown considerable evidence that cell phones are indeed causing brain tumors, salivary gland tumors, damage to sperm, damage to fetuses, testicular cancer, and more.
We have lost many young people to brain tumors that their doctors attributed more likely than not to their cell phone use. We are especially concerned about children- as is the AAP- they text more but many teens sleep with them under their pillows while on and keep them in their pockets or bras all day long. There is a case series by breast cancer surgeons showing a correlation between keeping a cell phone in the bra and breast cancer. We certainly have enough evidence to issue precautionary warnings which the CDC did recently- but when it went viral they retracted them! They claim it was done in error.
Shame on the tech companies for making and promoting wearable devices. And shame on our government for allowing this. Thank you NYT!
We have lost many young people to brain tumors that their doctors attributed more likely than not to their cell phone use. We are especially concerned about children- as is the AAP- they text more but many teens sleep with them under their pillows while on and keep them in their pockets or bras all day long. There is a case series by breast cancer surgeons showing a correlation between keeping a cell phone in the bra and breast cancer. We certainly have enough evidence to issue precautionary warnings which the CDC did recently- but when it went viral they retracted them! They claim it was done in error.
Shame on the tech companies for making and promoting wearable devices. And shame on our government for allowing this. Thank you NYT!
3
In reply to Steve Fankuchen, off the top of my head I remembered (from high school!), JH Muller's 1926 pioneering mutation work with x-rays and fruit flies. Muller went on to become an advocate for control over radiation exposures. Good Wikipedia article. There were probably other, earlier studies,and observations, especially as x-rays were surprisingly used very heavily in WW I. By the way, I worked, as a grad student, at Brooklyn Poly in the laboratory named for Isador Fankuchen, an x-ray crystallographer of great importance. Relative?
1
For all the "experts" who tell us that the bombardment of radio waves pose no health threat, I would ask them to please step inside a microwave oven, or directly stand in front of a radar antenna at JFK airport. I would bet they would politely decline the offer. With each passing day, we release additional sources of radio wave transmissions; cell phones, WI-FI, tablets, wearables... to name just a few. It will take many more years until the scientific community comes to the same conclusion as the "Camel-Smoking" Doctors. By then it will be too late for many of us. But take heart, your "investments" in high tech will have grown. However they may be tumors instead of dollars.
5
"For all the "experts" who tell us that a hot towel poses no health threat, I would ask them to please step inside a bonfire"
Microwave radiation is know to be dangerous. Cell phones do not emit microwave radiation. I don't know whether or not phones pose a threat, but your comparison makes no sense.
Microwave radiation is know to be dangerous. Cell phones do not emit microwave radiation. I don't know whether or not phones pose a threat, but your comparison makes no sense.
10
There are many lawsuits underway now against all carriers, manufacturers and the IEEE for wrongful death and personal injury. The telecom industry is self insured. These lawsuits must be disclosed to their shareholders. The science is mounting daily and the lawsuits are moving along well. Watch out for your telecom stocks folks!
1
A standard countertop microwave is rated at 1.2 kilowatts. The maximum allowed output from a cell phone is 2 watts (at least half of which, of course, is directed away from your body; a microwave is an enclosed chamber where the waves keep bouncing around until they hit something.) And the cell phone rarely runs at the full 2 watts (your battery wouldn't last very long if it did.)
Conflating a phone with a cooking appliance is like accusing a dermatologist of hypocrisy because he doesn't slather up on sunscreen to walk from his car to his office, but strongly suggests protection before lying on the beach all day.
Conflating a phone with a cooking appliance is like accusing a dermatologist of hypocrisy because he doesn't slather up on sunscreen to walk from his car to his office, but strongly suggests protection before lying on the beach all day.
4
More people will be killed by wearable tech by using it when driving than by wearing it.
32
From the WHO website:
"A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use."
"A large number of studies have been performed over the last two decades to assess whether mobile phones pose a potential health risk. To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use."
12
The WHO statement is inane--unless you consider these effects, as listed by the FCC, benign or somehow not real. Are these effects merely biological or biologically adverse?:
{S}cientific laboratories in North America, Europe and elsewhere have reported certain biological effects after exposure of animals ("in vivo") and animal tissue ("in vitro") to relatively low levels of RF radiation. These reported effects have included certain changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, evidence for a link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, a "calcium efflux" effect in brain tissue (exposed under very specific conditions), and effects on DNA.
Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF and microwave exposure and cancer."
{S}cientific laboratories in North America, Europe and elsewhere have reported certain biological effects after exposure of animals ("in vivo") and animal tissue ("in vitro") to relatively low levels of RF radiation. These reported effects have included certain changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, evidence for a link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, a "calcium efflux" effect in brain tissue (exposed under very specific conditions), and effects on DNA.
Some studies have also examined the possibility of a link between RF and microwave exposure and cancer."
And how many show no effect? I also perform studies so know how easly they can be flawed (even tiny hosting problem can cause this) most important rats are not human, calcium efflux again any good repclicated study cant confirm this. "exposed under very specific conditions)" under specific condition you can everything turn at posion.
1
D A I don't know the exact number of studies, but Dr. Henry Lai has a pretty extensive data base. A summary is found here http://www.bioinitiative.org/new-studies-show-health-risks-from-wireless...
"The BioInitiative reports nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies) in 2014. This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies) in 2012. Studies of extremely-low frequency radiation are reported to cause nervous system effects in 90% of the 105 studies available in 2014. Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies."
To find the studies and outcomes, see: http://www.bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/
"The BioInitiative reports nervous system effects in 68% of studies on radiofrequency radiation (144 of 211 studies) in 2014. This has increased from 63% in 2012 (93 of 150 studies) in 2012. Studies of extremely-low frequency radiation are reported to cause nervous system effects in 90% of the 105 studies available in 2014. Genetic effects (damage to DNA) from radiofrequency radiation is reported in 65% (74 of 114 studies); and 83% (49 of 59 studies) of extremely-low frequency studies."
To find the studies and outcomes, see: http://www.bioinitiative.org/research-summaries/
1
Technology may be a fact of life, but most persons have control over, and can thus modify, their cellphone use, so addressing this issue is probably not as important as addressing the issue of exposure to hazards that are out of one's control, such as another's loud music or the microparticles emanating from automobiles and other gas-powered machinery. The latter and EMF radiation do have something in common, that is, the assumption that if something cannot be seen, it cannot do any harm.
2
Not only the worst, most tabloid style, scientifically illiterate piece I've ever seen in the Times, but a vast disservice to its readership.
Beyond the first paragraph - wrong by itself, the "we have long suspected" does not belong in a newspaper, let alone an article meant to be anything more than flat out bias.
The author also appears to not understand the nature of either radio waves, with respect to the frequencies or strengths involved in the discussion, but does not even understand that a battery, by itself, radiates no magnetic fields, or much of anything else. This is purely illiterate.
It bothers me more than something similar on a wacky tin hat scare website simply because this piece will be circulated and cited forever by a certain part of the public, as the original power line cancer (self) promotions continue to cause strife, and also to cause scarce research money to be wasted, over and over again. "The NY Times says....." carries weight, even when something is clearly labeled as opinion, as this is not. I really believe the editors failed their obligation this time.
-a physics Ph.D.
Beyond the first paragraph - wrong by itself, the "we have long suspected" does not belong in a newspaper, let alone an article meant to be anything more than flat out bias.
The author also appears to not understand the nature of either radio waves, with respect to the frequencies or strengths involved in the discussion, but does not even understand that a battery, by itself, radiates no magnetic fields, or much of anything else. This is purely illiterate.
It bothers me more than something similar on a wacky tin hat scare website simply because this piece will be circulated and cited forever by a certain part of the public, as the original power line cancer (self) promotions continue to cause strife, and also to cause scarce research money to be wasted, over and over again. "The NY Times says....." carries weight, even when something is clearly labeled as opinion, as this is not. I really believe the editors failed their obligation this time.
-a physics Ph.D.
83
Assessment of the magnetic field exposure due to the battery current of digital mobile phones.
Jokela K1, Puranen L, Sihvonen AP.
Abstract
Hand-held digital mobile phones generate pulsed magnetic fields associated with the battery current. The peak value and the waveform of the battery current were measured for seven different models of digital mobile phones, and the results were applied to compute approximately the magnetic flux density and induced currents in the phone-user's head....
Numerical assessment of induced ELF currents in the human head due to the battery current of a digital mobile phone.
Ilvonen S1, Sihvonen AP, Kärkkäinen K, Sarvas J.
Abstract
In this study, the extremely low frequency (ELF) fields induced in the human head by the battery currents of a mobile phone are considered. The magnetic field induced by the phone was measured, and this data was used to calculate the resulting currents induced in the human head and brain.
Jokela K1, Puranen L, Sihvonen AP.
Abstract
Hand-held digital mobile phones generate pulsed magnetic fields associated with the battery current. The peak value and the waveform of the battery current were measured for seven different models of digital mobile phones, and the results were applied to compute approximately the magnetic flux density and induced currents in the phone-user's head....
Numerical assessment of induced ELF currents in the human head due to the battery current of a digital mobile phone.
Ilvonen S1, Sihvonen AP, Kärkkäinen K, Sarvas J.
Abstract
In this study, the extremely low frequency (ELF) fields induced in the human head by the battery currents of a mobile phone are considered. The magnetic field induced by the phone was measured, and this data was used to calculate the resulting currents induced in the human head and brain.
2
The author did not mention battery currents, but just the battery. Another indication that he didn't quite grasp the basics. A "powerful battery" by itself does not emit ELF fields of any sort. You have to connect it to something, and it doesn't matter if the battery is "powerful" or not, the phone is going to use the same miniscule current in either case. And concerning ELF -- well that's a different set of issues than addressed by the author. Also a prime venue for those who profit from scare-mongering.
4
I can't believe you interviewed the quack doctor Joseph Mercola.
56
I agree with most that this article is beneath even the Daily News quality of journalism.
It's in the Style section because it central theme is wearable technology, get it? Style, fashion...
I can just imagine the Science section editors laughing uncontrollably when this hogwash came across their desk.
It's in the Style section because it central theme is wearable technology, get it? Style, fashion...
I can just imagine the Science section editors laughing uncontrollably when this hogwash came across their desk.
45
This article is speculation built on speculation. There is no there there. Not worthy of a serious newspaper.
39
There is excellent peer reviewed science- this is not speculation.
Check out Lerchl, Hardell, World Health Organization classification of rf fields, and www.saferemr.com.
Check out Lerchl, Hardell, World Health Organization classification of rf fields, and www.saferemr.com.
3
I think it is prudent to consult Quackwatch before using the testimony of an "expert" in an article.
46
One piece of wearable technology is known to be quite harmful: those ubiquitous earbuds. GenX and Millennials are going to need hearing aids at a much earlier age than Boomers. Then there is known increase in astigmatism from all that screen time. No need to be afraid of the electromagnetic radiation that you can't detect. You can already see & hear what is causing a problem.
12
A review of the WHO fact sheet on this topic "Electromagnetic fields and public health: mobile phones" makes the REAL consensus on this topic quite clear - there is zero evidence for a biological mechanism that would cause cancer due to EMF, and animal studies "consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields."
The WHO is engaging in some serious behind-covering with a "maybe" classification based on meta-studies. When maybe means that "chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence," color me unconvinced.
The dangers of cigarettes would not be so easily hidden from us today, and neither would the supposed dangers of cell phone use. When I see a mechanism, or some sort of more direct evidence, then I'll be concerned. Until then, I don't mind my brain being several tenths of a degree warmer.
Style section? Stick to pretty clothing.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
The WHO is engaging in some serious behind-covering with a "maybe" classification based on meta-studies. When maybe means that "chance, bias or confounding cannot be ruled out with reasonable confidence," color me unconvinced.
The dangers of cigarettes would not be so easily hidden from us today, and neither would the supposed dangers of cell phone use. When I see a mechanism, or some sort of more direct evidence, then I'll be concerned. Until then, I don't mind my brain being several tenths of a degree warmer.
Style section? Stick to pretty clothing.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
25
Oh, you mean like low energy electromagnetic radiation emanating from cellphones stuck in someone's ear 12/7 doesn't cause glioblastoma multiforme to develop in the supratentorial regions of the human brain?
No direct causative link established through epidemiological research and animal experimentation, of course. It just seems to happen anyway; to heavy cellphone users especially.
Just another one of those inexplicable bad things that befall people who wear small computers (what a so-called "cellphone" is) a few millimeters from vulnerable tissue. Just one of those things. Those inexplicable bad things ... .
How droll ... .
No direct causative link established through epidemiological research and animal experimentation, of course. It just seems to happen anyway; to heavy cellphone users especially.
Just another one of those inexplicable bad things that befall people who wear small computers (what a so-called "cellphone" is) a few millimeters from vulnerable tissue. Just one of those things. Those inexplicable bad things ... .
How droll ... .
7
Sorry, study please? You sound very intelligent. Why not back it up with actual, peer-reviewed, replicable science?
3
Around this time last century poor young women were employed to paint radium chloride on wristwatch dials. Because everyone assumed radium chloride was safe no special precautions were taken to protect them. These women were actually encouraged to lick their paint brushes to keep the points sharp. Years later, many succumbed to terrible cancers.
Research ultimately uncovered the cause of their afflictions, although much too late to protect them; because science lags. Testing methods and paradigms to interpret test results often await discovery as well. Basic understanding of the underlying physics is built incrementally.
Some years from now I suspect an epidemiological link between low-power electromagnetic radiation, one or more latent viruses (like HCMV) and various lethal gliomas will be established. But until that happens rabid paranoia is certainly warranted.
Research ultimately uncovered the cause of their afflictions, although much too late to protect them; because science lags. Testing methods and paradigms to interpret test results often await discovery as well. Basic understanding of the underlying physics is built incrementally.
Some years from now I suspect an epidemiological link between low-power electromagnetic radiation, one or more latent viruses (like HCMV) and various lethal gliomas will be established. But until that happens rabid paranoia is certainly warranted.
3
With electromagnetic radiation of any kind, there are two things to consider: frequency and power. Frequency of radiation in Bluetooth devices is 2.4GHz, therefore non-ionising (in other words it is physically incapable of creating ions from stable atoms. In terms of power, Bluetooth radios - particularly such applications as headsets and tracking devices - emit less than 1mW of power because their signal need only reach a few meters away at most. Perhaps just as importantly, when they are not in active use (on standby) they emit very intermittently (hence why the batteries last for a week or more in many bluetooth headsets). Cell phone radios, however, use as much as much as 300mW-1000mW of power during active calls in order to reach the network towers. So what is there to conclude from all this? Firstly, if there's any danger with such radiation (which is inconclusive anyway) Bluetooth headsets are 100-500 times 'safer' that cell phones, even if those phones are held away from the head during a call. Second, and perhaps more importantly, you should be weary of devices when they are actively transmitting data and particularly those like cell phones or WiFi routers that transmit over longer distances (thus requiring more power).
6
Alexander, you may note that the dose-response relationship is not understood or believed by the emf scare-mongers, purveyors of homeopathic remedies, or other flaky segments of the population. These people also have no idea what the word 'radiation' might mean in the context of non-ionizing. You can't convince them that just because something emits further away from you that any putative effect is lessened. At the bottom, it's all anti-science, and there's no point in arguing about it. However, this drivel doesn't belong in a credible newspaper, no matter what section it appears in.
1
I am weary of all devices. Back to the world of land lines and call-pickups only if you are so inclined..... Independent of medical issues, it is tranquil.
3
There is a new worldview. In biology, living systems, not all dose/response effects are linear. Take endocrine disruptors for example. There is a lot of literature proving this. In some ways, this is compatible with the new physics paradigm, isn't it.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419778
Additionally, we explore nonmonotonic dose-response curves, defined as a nonlinear relationship between dose and effect where the slope of the curve changes sign somewhere within the range of doses examined. We provide a detailed discussion of the mechanisms responsible for generating these phenomena, plus hundreds of examples from the cell culture, animal, and epidemiology literature. We illustrate that nonmonotonic responses and low-dose effects are remarkably common in studies of natural hormones and EDCs. Whether low doses of EDCs influence certain human disorders is no longer conjecture, because epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures to EDCs are associated with human diseases and disabilities. We conclude that when nonmonotonic dose-response curves occur, the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. Thus, fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419778
Additionally, we explore nonmonotonic dose-response curves, defined as a nonlinear relationship between dose and effect where the slope of the curve changes sign somewhere within the range of doses examined. We provide a detailed discussion of the mechanisms responsible for generating these phenomena, plus hundreds of examples from the cell culture, animal, and epidemiology literature. We illustrate that nonmonotonic responses and low-dose effects are remarkably common in studies of natural hormones and EDCs. Whether low doses of EDCs influence certain human disorders is no longer conjecture, because epidemiological studies show that environmental exposures to EDCs are associated with human diseases and disabilities. We conclude that when nonmonotonic dose-response curves occur, the effects of low doses cannot be predicted by the effects observed at high doses. Thus, fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety determination are needed to protect human health.
4
Shame on the New York Times for setting a new low record for poorly researched, badly written articles.
A phenomenon that increases, as cell phone usage has done, by 10,000% over 25 years, yet produces no detectable blip on brain-cancer charts, cannot be considered a serious threat.
Where are the piles of bodies?
A phenomenon that increases, as cell phone usage has done, by 10,000% over 25 years, yet produces no detectable blip on brain-cancer charts, cannot be considered a serious threat.
Where are the piles of bodies?
49
Are we waiting for the pile of bodies? Many cancers are increasing disproportionately to the population, esp along the same curve as the wireless proliferation. I do not mean to say that wireless exposure is the only factor, but it is very likely one important factor.
2
Uh, no they're not. And no, it isn't.
3
for example
http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2014/10/increase-brain-tumors/
Sharp increase in patients treated for brain tumors with unclear diagnosis in Sweden
http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
Treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers increased by nearly 77 percent between 1992 and 2006.1
thyroid cancer
http://www.emfacts.com/2014/06/significant-increase-in-nose-ear-throat-c...
The number of head, neck, and nose-ear-throat surgeries in Rambam were doubled within one year. According to the data of the nose-ear-throat department, the increase was registered mainly in oncology surgeries of the mouth, head and neck, larynx and children surgeries. Thyroid surgeries increased 380% during last year. Increase of 320% was in surgeries for removing tumors in the throat area (from 40 to 128 surgeries). Surgeries of the parotid gland tumors increased 260% in 2013. But the most impressive increase of all, is the increase of 1000% (from 5 to 49) in the number of head and neck surgeries.
http://www.stralskyddsstiftelsen.se/2014/10/increase-brain-tumors/
Sharp increase in patients treated for brain tumors with unclear diagnosis in Sweden
http://www.skincancer.org/skin-cancer-information/skin-cancer-facts
Treatment of nonmelanoma skin cancers increased by nearly 77 percent between 1992 and 2006.1
thyroid cancer
http://www.emfacts.com/2014/06/significant-increase-in-nose-ear-throat-c...
The number of head, neck, and nose-ear-throat surgeries in Rambam were doubled within one year. According to the data of the nose-ear-throat department, the increase was registered mainly in oncology surgeries of the mouth, head and neck, larynx and children surgeries. Thyroid surgeries increased 380% during last year. Increase of 320% was in surgeries for removing tumors in the throat area (from 40 to 128 surgeries). Surgeries of the parotid gland tumors increased 260% in 2013. But the most impressive increase of all, is the increase of 1000% (from 5 to 49) in the number of head and neck surgeries.
3
There are innumerable problems that inherently limit the validity of population studies like those analyzed by the IARC. Not only is it very difficult to isolate and remove potentially confounding variables, it is very difficult to be sure whether the metric being measured is indeed the one intended to be measured. Scientists refer to these shortcomings as issues of internal validity, and they’re a problem faced by any investigative team trying to garner results from population data. Experimental studies (those done in a lab), on the other hand, typically have much higher internal validity, in part because the researchers have the ability to control many more of the variables. Experiments designed to study toxicology and tumorigenesis often have high validity for humans because the model organisms we study in labs (rats, mice, etc.) have biologies quite similar to our own. Thus, any experimental study that found a connection between cell phone radiation and tumorigenesis would be notably enlightening. Fortunately, the IARC concludes that the “results of animal studies consistently show no increased cancer risk for long-term exposure to radiofrequency fields.”
5
...as if the price tag and the useless 18 hr battery are not reasons enough to not to buy an apple watch...
4
I see that the title of the article has been changed from "Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?" to "The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech", and that the original tweet linking to the article has been deleted. But the piece still misrepresents the IARC study, and makes too many uninformed leaps of faith - http://www.riskscience.umich.edu/no-new-york-times-wearable-computers-co...
15
Use common senses & precaution regardless of conflicting arguments. What we can't see can hurt us. Setting cell phones close to our heads is probably not a good idea. The other items now being sold to the public will require a public who believes all is well & that's how it will work out for the corporations. It may or may not be harmful to attach net ready devices to our bodies but again we should be aware the evidence of harm is inconclusive. Technologies will not regress so let us progress with less distress and use our common sense.
1
Anthony, good idea, but don't forget that the snake oil, alt. med, bogus tech and scare-monger people also make a great deal of money from their activities, so their diatribes are not free of self-interest. The important difference between science and speculation is that science is fundamentally open for review and progress, and speculation is designed completely the other way. So, Anthony, where should you look for advice on how to reduce any particular risk?
4
Yes - maybe the author could've chosen more than one doctor to confirm his statement on possible concerns in the future regarding wearable devices. However, there IS a reason why this article is in the "Style" section of NYT and not in "Health". I wouldn't scrutenize it that much.
3
Stock prices & corporate profits trump human safety & standard of public protection. Proceed with caution & remember the track records of this trillion dollar market. Corporations have no conscience & so critical consumers need to be aware & make informed choices
6
An astrophysicist friend was once asked by a reporter when we could expect a giant meteorite to hit the earth, killing everyone. "No way to predict", he said.
"So it could happen next Tuesday, for instance?" "Sure."
The resulting headline: "Scientist: Giant Meteor May Hit Earth Next Tuesday".
This story reminded me of that one. Yes, anything is possible. Scientists know you can't prove a negative, but they don't always make that clear to laymen. That's how we get a non-story like this one.
And, as others have said, treating a so-called alternative medicine expert who pushes quack pseudo-science as an authority is the height of irresponsibility. It's a good thing this piece is in Style; it sure isn't Science or Technology.
"So it could happen next Tuesday, for instance?" "Sure."
The resulting headline: "Scientist: Giant Meteor May Hit Earth Next Tuesday".
This story reminded me of that one. Yes, anything is possible. Scientists know you can't prove a negative, but they don't always make that clear to laymen. That's how we get a non-story like this one.
And, as others have said, treating a so-called alternative medicine expert who pushes quack pseudo-science as an authority is the height of irresponsibility. It's a good thing this piece is in Style; it sure isn't Science or Technology.
40
I just can't take this seriously, unfortunately. The claim that 3G radios alone cause harm is sort of laughable. If there is any harm done by cellular radiation, there's no reason why it wouldn't be caused by 2G or 4G radiation on the same frequencies. There's nothing remotely different physically from how they transmit, the difference is essentially in the algorithms use to encode the signal. Or did the alleged expert use "3G" as an inexact synonym for 'cellular?' Or did he mean to say that transmitters in the 700-800 Mhz spectrum cause harm (i.e. most cellular signals), but not the 2400 Mhz spectrum (WiFi)? In that case, what about cell phones that are transmitting in the 1800 or 2100 Mhz bands? Do they not cause harm? Or did he mean to state that the transmitting power of cellular, versus that of WiFi, is what causes the harm? As someone with a bit of technical knowledge, the details provided in this article don't stand up to basic scrutiny. Unfortunately, anyone who reads this is likely to walk away misinformed. I can't say one way or the other if there is any harm from the use of cell phones, but if you're going to suggest that there is, at least back the article up with some consistent facts.
31
We face low-level risks like this from hundreds of products we use each day. Without definitive research, the potential harm is a guess. We know from experience that quite often, once the results are in from long-term studies, those results completely change the prevailing medical advice. My guess would be that the very low levels of radiation that cellular radios generate wouldn't be a problem. If you are concerned, don't hold the phone near to your brain while transmitting--if you are going to be on the phone that many hours a day, a Bluetooth headset would probably more comfortable anyway. Of course, Bluetooth uses pulsed microwave transmissions, so they're not radiation free either, and putting your cellphone in your pocket while using a headset could cause radiation of internal organs. Your best protection would probably be a low-power Bluetooth headset, and a selfie stick to hold the phone well away from your body.
Or, you could compare the risk of developing rare cancers from cell phone use to the risk of or being killed or injured during a trip in an automobile. If you conclude that riding in an automobile is a far riskier activity hour for hour than using a cell phone, and that most people take part in this activity without a second thought for the risk it poses, you should gain some perspective on the difference between real and hypothetical dangers, and the proper response to each.
Or, you could compare the risk of developing rare cancers from cell phone use to the risk of or being killed or injured during a trip in an automobile. If you conclude that riding in an automobile is a far riskier activity hour for hour than using a cell phone, and that most people take part in this activity without a second thought for the risk it poses, you should gain some perspective on the difference between real and hypothetical dangers, and the proper response to each.
7
Correlation is not causation, so how about some peer reviewed studies on cell phone cancer. So far the only cell phone tumors I see are the blue tooth devices clipped to peoples ears. What should consumers do? Why consume, of course!
9
That is rude to those who are suffering from brain tumors attributed more likely than not to cell phone use by their doctors and by peer reviewed replicated science. Brain tumors are nothing to laugh about. People are dead from this as young as 28. Check out the lawsuits- check out the very real science and check out the manuals which tell you never to hold it to your body and to limit your use. This is a trillion dollar industry regulating media and our government. About time a reporter tells it like it is. Would you like a list of the deceased?
3
There are zero people suffering from brain tumours attributed to cell phone use.
5
Concerns about the health effects of smoking date back to the mid-19th century. The first study that showed a statistical link between smoking and lung cancer was published in 1929. In the 1930's, cigarettes were nicknamed "coffin nails". The guy, wearing the lab coat, in the Camel ad was an actor, not a doctor.
34
While I don't dispute the evidence that cell phone use is possibly dangerous for one's health, I do take issue with the expert that NYT has chosen to include in the article. This issue is a serious one and a logical and thorough review of available scientific evidence as well as interviews of pioneers in the field would have been more appropriate than giving a mouth piece to someone who operates on little of either.
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm25070...
http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2011/ucm25070...
14
Where do I begin? Glaringly, Joseph Mercola is a quack and a charlatan, not an expert, and he should never be quoted as an expert anywhere in the Times. (He has never been in the past, according to a search of the Times website.)
Mr. Bilton’s statement that “we long suspected that cellphones” could lead to “disturbed blood rhythms” is unsupportable, regardless of who “we” is. If disturbed blood rhythms were even a thing (let alone a worrisome possible effect of cellphones), how can it be that Google returns no examples anywhere, in any context, of “disturbed blood rhythms” prior to the publication of this article?
As for the IARC’s classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic, it’s wrong to say “the group hedged its findings.” The IARC made a science-based assessment and put these fields (not simply cellphones) into category 2B along with such things as coffee, kimchee, and isoprene (600 million tons of which are naturally released by plants each year).
The Times has a respectable Science section, and I believe slipshod writing like this would never have appeared there. The editors and writers of Style should respect the newspaper’s boundaries and leave science to those writers who understand how it works.
Mr. Bilton’s statement that “we long suspected that cellphones” could lead to “disturbed blood rhythms” is unsupportable, regardless of who “we” is. If disturbed blood rhythms were even a thing (let alone a worrisome possible effect of cellphones), how can it be that Google returns no examples anywhere, in any context, of “disturbed blood rhythms” prior to the publication of this article?
As for the IARC’s classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic, it’s wrong to say “the group hedged its findings.” The IARC made a science-based assessment and put these fields (not simply cellphones) into category 2B along with such things as coffee, kimchee, and isoprene (600 million tons of which are naturally released by plants each year).
The Times has a respectable Science section, and I believe slipshod writing like this would never have appeared there. The editors and writers of Style should respect the newspaper’s boundaries and leave science to those writers who understand how it works.
131
I would like to point out that there is a very LARGE test group in the world. . . approximately 2.5 Billion cell phone users. If there were a correlation with cellular phone use and an increase in cancer, we would be seeing an increase in the cancers they are referencing in the populations using cellphones compared to rest of the population who do not use cellphones or the rate of those cancers before cell phone usage became ubiquitous. Strangely these cancers are occurring at the SAME RATE they did before widespread cellphone adoption. . . and in the SAME RATE among non-cellphone users (a involuntary control group). That would tend to indicate that the use of cellphones has no effect on the cancer rate, don't you think? I do.
8
Regarding cancer, numerous studies show a carcinogenic effect. Just this month Alex Lerchl's group published a replication of an earlier study by Tillman, et al, showing that this type of radiation is a cancer promoter. Lerchl's previous analyses of RF exposure studies usually dismissed and criticized any connection. Now he says, “Our results show that electromagnetic fields obviously enhance the growth of tumors.” Find the study by searching, "Tumor promotion by exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields below exposure limits for humans."
How many among us may have a genetic predisposition to cancer, periodic exposure to carcinogens [even in our food], and/or an undiagnosed cancer? Look further, Nick, and you will discover studies showing that exposure to emf's makes cancer more aggressive and more resistant to treatment. And even more showing other adverse effects to all living things.
Nick, I hope you will rethink that watch.
How many among us may have a genetic predisposition to cancer, periodic exposure to carcinogens [even in our food], and/or an undiagnosed cancer? Look further, Nick, and you will discover studies showing that exposure to emf's makes cancer more aggressive and more resistant to treatment. And even more showing other adverse effects to all living things.
Nick, I hope you will rethink that watch.
6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4178273/
Connection between Cell Phone use, p53 Gene Expression in Different Zones of Glioblastoma Multiforme and Survival Prognoses
We found that p53 gene expression in the peripheral zone of glioblastoma was increased in 65% of patients who used cell phones more than 3 hours a day and that this increase was significantly correlated with shorter overall survival time.
Connection between Cell Phone use, p53 Gene Expression in Different Zones of Glioblastoma Multiforme and Survival Prognoses
We found that p53 gene expression in the peripheral zone of glioblastoma was increased in 65% of patients who used cell phones more than 3 hours a day and that this increase was significantly correlated with shorter overall survival time.
4
"Could Wearable Computers Be As Harfmful As Cigarettes" is an irresponsible sensationalist headline for a topic about which no real data exists. Not much different from "Could Werable Computers Be As Harmful As Excessive Suntanning."
19
This article really is pretty pitiful. The expert Dr Mercola on electromagnetic effects says that if there is no 3G radio there's no serious harm. So why all the alarm around Apple Watch ?
8
ATTN: SUNLIGHT CAUSES CANCER.
Please move underground.
The naked mole rat lives 100 times longer than normal rats for a reason.
Being naked, in the dark and in underground tunnels--What's not to love?
Please move underground.
The naked mole rat lives 100 times longer than normal rats for a reason.
Being naked, in the dark and in underground tunnels--What's not to love?
4
Shame on NYT for lending legitimacy to pseudoscience. Cell phone "radiation" is not ionizing radiation. It's radiation in the same sense that light and radio are waves are radiation. It's completely different from the harmful radiation that comes from radioactive material and high-energy wave. There's not even a plausible mechanism by which it could be harmful.
Why is this in style section anyway? Are tin foil hats in fashion now?
Why is this in style section anyway? Are tin foil hats in fashion now?
58
Simply not true.
Pall has done a thorough review on voltage gated calcium channels:
Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects.
Pall has done a thorough review on voltage gated calcium channels:
Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects.
1
Simply not true is your comment, first Pall pick studies and I wonder why ignoring this which shows no effect on calcium channels he take mostly in vitro studies no even one study can replicated this theory.
3
Paging Tim from CA. "Light," as in THE SUN, can be harmful in excess.
Ever heard of skin cancer?
You and your mindset of "There's not even a plausible mechanism by which is could be harmful" is pseudoscience.
Ever heard of skin cancer?
You and your mindset of "There's not even a plausible mechanism by which is could be harmful" is pseudoscience.
1
This is perhaps the worst researched article I've seen in The New York Times for years. The multiple well-designed studies that show no link between mobile phones and other such devices and cancer are ignored, while pseudo-science floggers like Joseph Mercola, who promotes such quackery as healing with magnets and homeopathy, are given full voice as though they were legitimate sources of information. The New York Times should withdraw this travesty and fire all involved in publishing it.
61
If you're going to cite (and quote) Joseph Mercola, who pushes magnetic healing and homeopathy, among other things, then there's not much point in citing actual scientific studies. Mercola's approach is the complete antithesis of actual scientific. You're effectively saying that we can believe anything we want, which makes the whole article pointless.
The actual research, as you more or less point out, indicates that there could possibly be a connection between cellphones and cancer. The reason the science is so equivocal, however, is that any link, if there is one, is so small as to be undetectable. This doesn't mean that the science is ineffective, it means that there's not much to worry about. So there's no need to go rushing to pseudo-scientists for answers.
The actual research, as you more or less point out, indicates that there could possibly be a connection between cellphones and cancer. The reason the science is so equivocal, however, is that any link, if there is one, is so small as to be undetectable. This doesn't mean that the science is ineffective, it means that there's not much to worry about. So there's no need to go rushing to pseudo-scientists for answers.
69
It's very telling that the best "expert" you could find is someone who specializes in "alternative medicine" (aka medicine that doesn't work). Mercola hawks do-nothing supplements on his website. Cell phones have been popular for quite a while, yet, there hasn't been a proportional increase in cancer.
In short, wearable computers and cell phones do not cause cancer.
In short, wearable computers and cell phones do not cause cancer.
34
Conflating a smartwatch with a wearable computer, tossing in concerns about power lines and batteries, and then using a title referencing smoking is one of the more egregious examples of sensationalistic journalism I have ever seen.
44
Is it really a good idea to interview Joseph Mercola as an expert on cancer risk when he's previously said cancer is caused by root canals?!
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2015/03/why-is-the-new-york-times-turnin...
http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2015/03/why-is-the-new-york-times-turnin...
35
There is no research that has established a link between non-ionizing radiation exposure and cancer. And even though it is nearly impossible to rule any variable out of the complex equation of cancer's many causes, there is no reason for this kind of scare mongering. Lacking any such evidence, or even a plausible mechanism for how non-ionizing radiation could cause cancer, I find it irresponsible for the author to suggest that anyone should stay away from these devices on this basis.
81
Andrew, please make the acquaintance of career epidemiologist Devra Davis, who is right here next to you in the comments. She strongly disagrees.
4
False. The WHO research documents a statistical correlation between electromagnetic radiation exceeding 2 mg and childhood leukemia. The research is solid, and I've read it myself top to bottom. It wasn't funded to discredit people, but instead to get to the truth, unlike most of the US electronics and consumer industry research that was tailored later on to protect the industry. There were earlier studies by others that did not establish a correlation – those were based only on electric field rather than magnetic fields. The later research focusing on magnetism established problems. Magnetic fields are almost impossible to reduce or shield, which means largely you'd better stay away from high-powered electronic devices on your body.
8
I am laughing so hard at the people who disagree with you andrew. If only they realized the earth is surrounded by a magnetic field powerful enough to block out a ton of radiation, but even then, even sunlight causes cancer, but it is still something that your body uses for vitamin d, and literally provides all the natural energy on earth. Cellphone towers do emit radiation, but people don't realize that it decays over distance, so there is basically negligible radiation by the time it reaches anything on the ground, or even by the time it hits the top of a 7 foot tall male
4
Please add this to my other submitted comment as I did not know how to do this. Google has just patented a wristband that could treat cancer by targeting abnormal cells in the blood, and could also treat abnormal proteins tied with Parkinson's: It works by modifying or targeting abnormal cells with infrared, microwave radiation or acoustic pulsed signals.
This newly patented wristband could also work with pills that cause unhealthy cells to light.
So how we can assume that google watch has no biological impact at all???
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2999173/Google-wins-paten...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
This newly patented wristband could also work with pills that cause unhealthy cells to light.
So how we can assume that google watch has no biological impact at all???
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2999173/Google-wins-paten...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
3
Simply because something is patented doesn't mean it works. I read a patent that purported to invent a way to communicate faster than the speed of light. Way too many patent examiners are inept.
3
The patent cited by that important source of science, The Daily Mail, isn't nutty, but it isn't what Dr. Davis implies it's about. It is simply a way to control added or injected nanoparticles, for example magnetic ones, that might selectively bind to bad things in the blood. Broadly, it also suggests other injected materials, influenced by other forces. Sort of like a microscopic version of pulling a steel-jacketed bullet out of a wound with a magnet, although I doubt that's done very much.
2
Thank you for commenting Dr. Davis. Nice to see an expert in this conversation. It's getting a little bit old seeing people commenting that research showing health impacts from wireless devices does not exist.
http://ehtrust.org/about/about-dr-davis/
http://ehtrust.org/about/about-dr-davis/
1
This story misses a key point: wearable devices are tethered to phones, iPads, or other microwave-radiating wireless transmitting digital devices (WTD). If these are kept in the pocket or bra, they will create exposures that exceed the as-tested levels. Men who keep phones in their pockets have fewer and sicker sperm http://ehtrust.org/mens-health/ Young women who've kept phones in their bras have developed unusually located breast cancers right under the phone's antennas.http://ehtrust.org/cell-phones-and-breast-cancer/
5
Why in the world would the author only worry about holding the watch to his head/brain? What about the skin, blood, and nerves right below his watch? What about the pelvic area adjacent to a dangling wrist??? The brain is not the only vulnerable part of the body.
8
This WHO reference is taken out of context by the author: "The W.H.O. panel concluded that the farther away a device is from one’s head, the less harmful — so texting or surfing the Web will not be as dangerous as making calls, with a cellphone inches from the brain. " That harm is in relation to the effects only on the brain--or anything near the brain. It can not be presumed to say the rest of the body is unaffected. If one is texting, one is holding the device in one's hands, perhaps against his lap, chest, or abdomen. The author's misguided sense of security from lower exposure levels is debatable, particularly in regard to nonthermal effects which have been demonstrated in the literature at various exposure levels. Often a lower level has been determined to cause an effect--such as blood/brain barrier disruption-- that a higher level did not, a nonlinear dose/response.
4
I'm very disturbed by the potential long-term effect of having a cellphone close to your head. I don't make or receive a lot of calls, but I do use the Sleep Cycle app (App Store), which acts as an alarm that waits until the user is in light sleep. Although I put my iPhone in airplane mode, the fact that the device might be emanating radiation is very disturbing. I won't be using the app anything soon and I caution others to take heed!
3
Read some actual science on the subject. just because something "radiates" doesn't mean whatever it radiates is harmful. The wavelengths and power associated with cell phones is not enough to interact with chemical bonds, certainly not remotely in the ballpark to messing with DNA.
Lead a healthy lifestyle and don't worry so much about what some guy, who makes a living selling water and magnets to sick people ( or those who think they're sick), says while true scientists say the opposite.
Lead a healthy lifestyle and don't worry so much about what some guy, who makes a living selling water and magnets to sick people ( or those who think they're sick), says while true scientists say the opposite.
8
Unfortunately, this article appears in the Style section instead of News or Science/Health, where it would likely be more relevant and, more importantly, would be read more.
The essential issue presented by this piece -- how, as a society, we approach the introduction of new products -- extends far past the issue of consumer gadgets. Non-ionizing radiation, magnetic fields, chemicals, and genetic modification are all areas, where our policy essentially reduces to caveat emptor. Almost anything can be placed into the human environment, remediation for negative consequences limited to post facto actions, the burden placed on those already harmed.
The example of doctors promoting cigarettes is not actually appropriate. One could have reasonably assumed that filling lungs with smoke was not good. Death by acute smoke inhalation from fires was universally known. The effect of ionizing radiation would be more appropriate. There was little upfront evidence of it's biological effects and, thus, the unshielded and high dosage usage of x-rays was not apparent. (One can but wonder how many people developed cancer from the common usage of flouroscopes in shoe stores.)
We should keep in mind both individually and as a policy-making society, that all these things are put out there by companies seeking to make a profit. While that does not mean they necessarily lie, their oft claimed fiduciary responsibility is to their investors, not to the whole truth or to society at large.
The essential issue presented by this piece -- how, as a society, we approach the introduction of new products -- extends far past the issue of consumer gadgets. Non-ionizing radiation, magnetic fields, chemicals, and genetic modification are all areas, where our policy essentially reduces to caveat emptor. Almost anything can be placed into the human environment, remediation for negative consequences limited to post facto actions, the burden placed on those already harmed.
The example of doctors promoting cigarettes is not actually appropriate. One could have reasonably assumed that filling lungs with smoke was not good. Death by acute smoke inhalation from fires was universally known. The effect of ionizing radiation would be more appropriate. There was little upfront evidence of it's biological effects and, thus, the unshielded and high dosage usage of x-rays was not apparent. (One can but wonder how many people developed cancer from the common usage of flouroscopes in shoe stores.)
We should keep in mind both individually and as a policy-making society, that all these things are put out there by companies seeking to make a profit. While that does not mean they necessarily lie, their oft claimed fiduciary responsibility is to their investors, not to the whole truth or to society at large.
13
Steve, the biological and mutagenic effects of ionizing radiation were documented quite early, about a century ago for x-rays. I also remember those Stride Rite fluoroscopes, which were very much like high dose versions that many physicians had in their offices, and used excessively. However, the issue really became one of what gets regulated, what gets tested, what gets measured. A modern example is the CAT scan, a high dose procedure equivalent to perhaps a few hundred chest x-rays, seemingly dispensed with excessive frequency as if without harm. At the bottom, you have to believe that more dose equals more response, and know what's being dispensed. But some portion of the public is willing to believe that less can be more, or that anything you can't feel might have properties beyond science. Tin hats, anyone?
5
The question of whether cellphones cause cancer is not one where we have left things to "caveat emptor". The topic has been extensively studied. Though you would not know it from Nick Bilton's egregiously bad reportage here, the conclusive answer to the question is that there is no such link. It is stunning to me that the New York Times would publish an article this badly researched, regardless of the section, and would quote a quack (he's not even an M.D.) with a long history of run-ins for peddling snake oil as an authority on the topic.
16
Behavioral Economics show how we fear statistically rare, or in this case unproven, dangers while ignoring the obvious, this article is a case study.