Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Telemóvel e Cancro Cerebral


O Expresso online de hoje faz referência a um estudo que será publicado no International Journal of Epidemiology sobre a relação entre o uso de telemóveis e o cancro cerebral. O resultado do estudo adivinha-se facilmente: inconclusivo. Na verdade, todos os estudos sobre este tema revelam-se inconclusivos, talvez porque não há nada a concluir.

Deixo aqui algumas citações do físico Robert Park, que tem tentado mostrar - pelos vistos sem sucesso, pois rios de dinheiro continuam a ser gastos nestes estudos - na sua coluna semanal "What's New" como é impossível que os telemóveis causem cancro.

All known cancer agents act by breaking chemical bonds in DNA, creating mutant strands that may multiply to become cancers. Microwave photons are orders of magnitude short of being able to break chemical bonds. The Federal Communications Commission, the Food and Drug Administration and the American Cancer Society recognize this, but for most Americans the words “quantum mechanics” are simply an announcement that you won't understand what follows.

Fact: cell phone radiation doesn’t cause cancer. Cancer agents break chemical bonds, creating mutant strands of DNA. Microwave photons cannot break chemical bonds. This is not debatable. In 1989, Paul Brodeur, a staff writer for the New Yorker, claimed in a series of sensational articles that electromagnetic fields from power lines cause childhood leukemia. Brodeur, however, understood none of this and when virtually every scientist agreed that it was impossible, Brodeur took their unanimity as proof of a massive cover-up. Other anti-science know-nothings followed Brodeur’s lead, shifting their attack to cell phone radiation. Cell phones have since spread to almost the entire population, but with no corresponding increase in brain cancer. Case closed.

Last week, Senate hearings were held asking whether cell phones cause brain cancer. Brian Walsh, writing for Time, described the outcome as "inconclusive." A collective groan rose from the nation’s physicists. "Not again?" It's been almost 17 years since David Reynard, whose wife died from brain cancer, was on Larry King Live. Reynard was suing the cell phone industry. He said his wife, "held it against her head, and talked on it all the time." That was enough for Larry King. However, all known cancer agent act by breaking chemical bonds, producing mutant strands of DNA. It would be like suing me for hitting someone with a rock thrown across the Potomac River. George Washington is said to have thrown a silver dollar across the Potomac. I can't throw that far, and microwave photons can't break chemical bonds. Not until you get up to the near ultraviolet, about 10,000 times more energetic than microwaves, are photons capable of causing cancer.

I read another article this week in which a physician warns that the risk for each use is minimal, "but over the years repeated exposure could produce genetic damage leading to cancer." I’ve been trying for years to throw a rock across the Potomac River. So far, they don’t go half way, but I’ll keep trying in case it’s cumulative.

Yesterday, the cell-phone controversy was taken to a new and substantially lower level. The Cohort Study on Mobile Communications (COSMOS) was launched in the UK to determine whether microwave radiation from wireless devices can induce cancer. It will track 250,000 users for 30 years to catch any slow growing cancers. Note the built-in job protection. The study will look for neurological diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s as well. Participants aged 18-69 are being recruited in Britain, Finland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. In Britain, COSMOS is inviting 2.4 million cell phone users to take part, and hoping 100,000 or so will accept. If they do the study really well, it will confirm Albert Einstein’s 1905 explanation of the photoelectric effect, for which he was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize. Of course, the photoelectric effect is confirmed thousands of times annually by students in elementary physics lab courses. If it is done badly, this tedious and expensive study could perpetuate the public’s unfounded fear of radiation below the ultraviolet threshold. This must be stopped.

No comments:

Post a Comment