Averi Marshall

Professor Chaney Biology 1010

YOUR PHONE IS FRYING YOUR BRAIN

Young boy playing on phone

Introduction

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF5ArGid5QE

Congressman Dennis Kucinich, U.S house of representatives, claimed that cell phones are frying your brain. He was giving a small speech in the form of a youtube video to bring awareness to the affects cell phones are having on children and stating that children and adults should limit to cut the use of cell phones. Dennis Kucinich said that there has been many “peer-reviewed” studies of cell phones causing brain damage. “There’s enough studies out there that point out the possible adverse health risks out there that any parent who loves their child in any way would not let their child use a cell phone,” said Kucinich. The video shows pictures of what look to be the brain getting worse with the use of cell phones, but doesn’t explain what is happening in the photos, how much phone usage, and what kind of phones. The congressman compares cell phone companies to cigarette companies in a leading cause for cancer, although cell phones do have a risk of cancer, that risk is close to none. Watching this short clip you can tell that the Congressman doesn’t know very much on the subject, and hasn’t done any fact checking on it. 

Cell phone usage daily has little to no effects on the brain.

Cell Phone vs. Brain

Using your phone can cause cancer? No one would ever have thought this, until a television report linked cell phone usage to a women that had a brain tumor. Brain tumor cases have grown with the use of cell phones, so some have connected the two. This and the fact that cell phone and technology usage has greatly increased in recent years have led people to believe that cell phone radiation has an impact on your brain and could lead to cancer. The type of tumor people are worried about in this case is the most common type of brain tumor, gliomas. Brain tumors are a leading cause of cancer, so you can see why people are concerned about this issue. The cause of concern is not that the radiofrequency radiation given from a phone will give cancer, it's that it will heat tissues and cause a tumor that leads to cancer. The truth is, that normal or even high use of a cell phone will not cause any big problems to your health. Cell phones do emit energy and radiation, but it doesn’t give off enough to even heat up your skin.  Radiofrequency is seen as harmless because of the very low amount of energy it gives off. Although it is very little, it does give off some radiation.  Talking on the phone with your phone to your head, raises concern with radiofrequency. There are a lot of factors that contribute though to raise any concern at all, like how much you talk on the phone. You would need to talk on your phone for hours a day every day of the week to get a small amount of radiation.  Another factor is that you need to be very close to a cell tower or there will be no radiation whatsoever, but very little is given off even close to the towers. The farther away from the tower, the harder your phone has to work for the connection hence the more radiation the farther you go. Radiofrequency radiation has not be proven to have cancerous effects on the body. In truth, because phones are changing and upgrading every day and they are new, there hasn’t been any long term studies on the effects they have on people. Cell phones have not been around long enough yet to determine any serious consequences of using them often. Researchers have done studies though on people with growing tumors that use phones and people without phones and they have not found any correlations with the use of the phone and the tumor growth.

In conclusion, Congressman Kucinich did not do enough research linking cell phone use to brain damage. If he would have done any research he would have realized the fault in his statements. He stated that it was a huge problem and could have given a lot of people a cause for worry, when in reality what he was saying was false. Kucinich put in graphs and photos with no context and stated that he got his information from “sources” but didn’t give any evidence. Cancer isn’t the threat, a brain tumor is what he is scared off.  Phone usage gives off radiation but not a great amount, many factors go into the amount of radiation.  Cell phone usage does not have any major effects on the brain. Even though rumors like these are spread, using your cell phone can continue to be a source of entertainment, help, and communication for you every day!

**Rise in phone usage

Link to video of Dennis Kucinich:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF5ArGid5QE

Links to sources:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/expert-answers/cell-phones-and-cancer/faq-20057798

http://www.healthandenvironment.org/brain_cancer

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3855294/

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet

“Unengineered” claims on GMOs.

By: Zackie Kanishka

Background on a Simple Claim:

Carly Fiorina is a republican woman who was a former candidate for the 2016 presidential race. A major issue that is often addressed in the presidential race is science, and a somewhat controversial topic discussed is genetically modified organisms(GMOs). GMOs are exactly what they stand for, and in this case, politicians are usually referring to plants or animals that have been altered in order to yield more product or survive certain biological threats.

To put it simply, genes from one plant or animal can be extracted, then forced into a different organism.

Fiorina’s stance on GMOs is unique, as she is the only candidate who made a solid claim on their actual safety, rather than how it affects political principles. Fiorina quotes in a transcribed town hall appearance, “GMOs are safe” and further continues to quote, “I think the science is pretty clear that this is not only safe, but it's a benefit to people all over this nation, and all over the world".

Fiorina’s claims are too simple, and it is almost as if she was saying the sky was blue. She further talks about how GMOs help feed the massive population. She continues to state that the scientific evidence behind genetic engineering is completely solid, and that there is only controversy because of the lack of knowledge on the topic. She has a very specific, one way view on the topic, and that is that GMOs are completely safe according to science.

Basically:

Carly Fiorina’s claims are considered correct by many, but only as a general statement. She isn’t taking certain things into account.

Her claim that GMOs are safe, is backed by a lot of scientific studies, along with most scientists in the scientific community. But of course, there is a minority of individuals and scientific studies that don’t entirely prove her right, or even go against her claims.

Evidence and the things to consider:

To go into depth, a scientifically peer reviewed study was conducted on how GMOs would affect chicks. For 120 days, 4 groups of chicks were fed different diets in order to later analyze the findings. For group one, general commercial feed was given. The second group of chicks were fed a diet free of GMOs. Group three were fed a mix of half general feed and half GMO feed. Group four was fed the highest concentration of GMO feed, with two thirds being GMO feed. After initial observation and testing, the chicks were further dissected and deeper tests were run to see if there were any differences between the groups.

The study basically suggests, that chicks who fed on any amount of the GMO food showed no differences when compared to the chicks who weren’t given GMOs to eat. So it can be concluded that chicks who eat genetically modified food for a short period of time have no negative effects or behaviors that are caused by GMOs.

Another point to mention, is that not anything that is genetically engineered makes it free of skepticism. The Food and Drug Administration(FDA) have a part in supervising and controlling GMOs. This means that just like any other food in an American fridge, the engineered food must be considered safe by the FDA. Furthermore, Examples of things the FDA might look for is what substances the new food might have been introduced too, like toxins or allergens, or nutrition content compared to non GMOs. So to say a GMO is safe just because it is a GMO is not accurate.

Something else that needs to be addressed is the whole process of how GMOs are engineered. The ability to engineer a tomato with it’s own natural pesticide also comes with certain responsibilities and precautions. There are certain things we don’t know, like how GMOs would react with other natural organisms in the population. Another further example, what if certain  genes cause allergic reactions to some individuals? We can never cease to stop learning and discovering more about a certain subject, and the research on genetic engineering has only begun. The Image to the left contains mice that have been genetically engineered to glow. (source)

Another article from harvard.edu, shows the possible effects on genetic diversity. Introducing a GMO can affect the environment, which should be taken into account. The famous irish potato famine is brought up because of its small range of diversity. Basically, potatoes were very popular in Ireland since they were easy to grow and had few troubles, but potatoes are grown in a way that makes them clones of each other, or, genetically identical. They were the main source of food, but when a powerful pathogen was introduced into the potato population, all potatoes had the same resistance. This caused a widespread famine.

Finally, in the world of politics, there may be some claims without any scientific backing at all, but a majority of claims and laws are made for some scientific concern. In this case, european politicians believe that there is a reason to ban production of GMOs.  There is a minority group in the scientific community that disagree with the majority on GMOs, and even they have an influence as can be seen here.

To put into image:

Top World GMO Production in 2005 (source)

Solid: Top 5 GMO producers. Striped: Produce GMOs. Dotted: Only experimental GMOs.

To Conclude:

GMOs have substantial potential for our planet, but even little things should be taken into concern. It isn’t as simple as proving they are safe. If that were the case, the scientific community can throw away any further research on genetic engineering.

Ultimately, Fiorina’s claim can be considered only partially true. The simple claim that GMOs are safe, is agreed upon by a majority in the scientific community. However, many people forget that in science, nothing can ever be fully proven, only disproven. For example, when a scientist conducts a study or experiment to show the positives of genetic engineering, it can be said they are disproving the negative aspects of genetic engineering. More research and findings are needed to benefit and further our understanding of GMOs.