fearmongering

Cell Phones Don’t Cause Cancer

by Ryan Young on July 13, 2010 · 1 comment

in Health and Illness, Nanny State, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Tech & Telecom

Over at the Daily Caller, I debunk the fear that long-term cell phone use can cause brain tumors. San Francisco and Maine already have warning label regulations on the books. Rep. Dennis Kucinich has introduced federal warning label legislation. Here are the main reasons they’re wasting their time:

-Activists promoting the scare only ever mention brain tumors. But you hold your cell phone in your hand. You hold it next to your ear and your jaw. Why no mention of those cancers? Suspicious.

-Most phones only emit one watt of energy. The human body generates about a hundred times that much energy during normal, everyday activity. Adding a single watt to that baseline does nothing to contribute to the DNA damage that can lead to tumor growth.

-Cell phone photons are so weak, they fall short of DNA-damaging energy levels by about a factor of 500,000. So you might have something to worry about if you strapped half a million cell phones to your body. That would be getting crushed to death, not cancer. Phones don’t operate at cancer-causing frequencies.

Baby Bottle Politics Trumps Science at FDA

by Angela Logomasini on January 19, 2010 · 1 comment

in Environment

The greens are rejoicing today because the Food and Drug Administration has softened its stance on the safety of Bisphenol A, a chemical used in the production food packaging and containers, such as baby bottles. Humans consume trace amounts of BPA in food products, but there is no direct evidence of any human health problems after decades of use.

For years, FDA has reported that BPA levels were too low to pose any significant health problems to humans. Scientific reviews around the (EU, Japan, Canada) world have drawn the same conclusion. Now FDA says it wants more study and might want to regulate in the future. But the science hasn’t changed–just the politics. Unfortunately, in today’s world, fear mongering and hype is more powerful than science.

So exactly what did FDA report this week? They “reviewed the research” and are suddenly more wary about the substance because of conclusions drawn in a 2008 National Toxicology Program report about BPA impacts on rodents. The agency notes that it could not find any direct evidence of problems among humans. It expressed minimal to negligible concern for almost all potential BPA risk factors. It expressed “some concern” in one area because some studies showed associations indicating that bisphenol A “can cause changes in the brain and behavior” and have “effects on the prostate gland” of laboratory animals. The NTP expressed “some concern” that associations between BPA and rodent development may indicate possible impacts on the development of children and human fetuses. NTP called for more research before such concerns could be dismissed.

Yet those concerns are drawn from rodent studies that have largely been dismissed around the world (as well as by FDA) as not particularly relevant or adequate for drawing conclusions. The NTP report noted: “These studies in laboratory animals provide only limited evidence for adverse effects on development and more research is needed to better understand their implications for human health.”

It is difficult to believe that FDA has suddenly found these studies compelling on scientific grounds. Instead, it appears the studies’ limitations are now being overlooked to justify a political agenda. FDA will now likely spend millions of taxpayer dollars to study this issue, but it is unlikely to find anything new. But whatever they find, you can be sure they will use it as an excuse to expand their regulatory power.