Sorry this article is nonsense: "Cancer comes from mutations in the genetic program of the cell. High-energy particles can cause DNA damage that eventually leads to a cancer.". Do yourself a favor and read about epigenetics, a virbant field that started 50 years ago, and showed that cancer can easily occur without genetic mutations, by modifying epigenetic marks. (CpG methylation, histone acetylation or methylation, etc., and small non-coding RNA mediated signaling pathways). DNA breaks are NOT a necessity for cancer development. You need to read articles published over the past 2 decades, otherwise you remain outdated and out of line with the published peer reviewed reality.

Rick,
Since you left your comment signed with only your first name, I am left to wonder what your credentials are to state that Dr. Sherman's answer to the question above was "nonsense". Further, I found your remark to Dr. Sherman in which you stated, "you need to read articles published over the past 2 decades..." offensive.
Perhaps you don't realize that Dr. Sherman has both a MD and a PhD and is board certified in both internal medicine and medical oncology and hematology. His PhD was simultaneously completed while he was in medical school at the State University of New York at Syracuse. His thesis was regarding cancer-causing viruses. Oh, and, I forgot to mention that he did both his internship and residency at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, MD.
He holds 3 patents, one of which pertains to methods for delivering a molecule into a cell. Yet, you question his ability to understand genetic mutations? You might want to read Dr. Sherman's curriculum vitae, which currently holds a list of 26 of his publications, all of which were published in the "past 2 decades".
Most offensive to me personally is the fact that Dr. Sherman saves lives every day by what he does as a physician. I know, because he saved mine. I am alive today because of the genius that he is.
I think your comment was flippant and uncalled for. In your words, "out of line"
Suzann Coite

Dear Suzann,

Thank you for your comment. I admire the fact that Dr. Sherman saves lives, and I commend him for his important and irreplaceable work. At the same time, my comments with regard to the article above, were directed at very specific statements, the fact that he stated that cancer comes from mutations. We live in an era when thousands of articles have already dispelled the myth that mutagenesis is required for carcinogenesis; in other words, that one needs to mutate DNA in order to lead to cancer. To give a specific example, many environmental agents act by methylating DNA or histones, and prevent transcription factors from binding, or recognize protein complexes than can have a variety of effects, and when tumor suppressor genes are affected in this manner, this can unleash a number of events that lead to cancer - without the need to actually break the DNA and cause mutations in the first place. Thus, the "mutagenesis=carcinogenesis" paradigm is not true any longer.
I did not even comment on another statement from the article, that "There is no evidence that cell phones cause an increase in any form of cancer", which is factually wrong: many studies have already found increased incidence of cancer as a result of cell phone usage, they are available in the literature.

Thanks very much, I don't need to read Dr. Sherman's CV; I trust he is a distinguished professional. I also know that cancer comes not only from mutations, and the field of epigenetics proves it.

Dear Suzann,

I also would like to point out, with regard to your message, that what institution someone has earned their degree(s), and even the fact that they are wonderful physicians and save lives, are irrelevant for the purpose of discussing a scientific problem. One can be an amazing MD and save lives, and be mistaken in science. Science is evolving so fast, just years ago it was stated that the amount of information doubles every 5 years, but today I think that time is already much shorter. And with all respect, when I read a factually flawed statement, I believe I am right to urge the author to do additional reading, to prevent further articles in which the error is repeated. I am always delighted to have an opportunity to educate people, and since medicine and science are fields where one learns new things every day, correcting someone's mistake should not be answered by listing the person's credentials and number of publications. Those are mostly irrelevant for the above purpose. If I make a mistake in one of my statements, I am eager to read more articles on that topic, when someone points the issue out, and the last thing I would do, is tell them what institution my degrees come from, or how long my CV is. If we used that approach, we could never discuss science, but would, instead, replace scientific debate and progress with discussions about authority, past achievements, and professional pedigree. Thank you once again for your comment. With warmest regards.

Thanks for your reply. I respectfully disagree. I stated that "what institution someone has earned their degree(s)" is irrelevant, when engaging in a scientific discussion - considering, of course, that the two people are both trained in relevant fields. I am *not* referring to businesspeople and physicians arguing about a treatment. I am referring to two professionals with the same/ similar/comparable background/education, from the same field. In this case, it is really not relevant what institution one was trained in. It is time to end this "educational pedigree"-type snobbism when people discuss a scientific question, and immediately mention what institution one was trained in. What matters, is how people support their scientific argument, not what institution granted their degrees.

Why am I suggesting that you do more reading? Simple...because of factually flawed statements. I did *not* attack anyone, and did *not* make inflammatory statements. I care about science communication, and like to point out errors when and where I see them. I know some people don't like it, but the ones who like to advance professionally, appreciate it and read more. I know I am right, because many peer-reviewed epidemiological studies show increased cancer risk from cell phones. European governments already issued advisories and ban their marketing to kids based on these considerations. Thus, writing that "there is no evidence", is erroneous and misleading. Thank you, best regards.

I am also, somewhat confused about an issue. Donna's post states: "I have heard from many of Dr. Sherman's patients" and "...reading Dr. Sherman's take...", but then it writes "I am not sure why you are suggesting I do more reading on the subject". I was urging the article's *author* to do more reading on the subject (which I assume is Dr. Sherman), I wasn't telling Donna to do more reading.

I don't understand why pointing out errors in an article is met with such hostility and accusations of "inflammatory comments" - unless, of course, readers are encouraged to simply disregard mistakes and nod for everything they read, whether it is correct or not.

Rick,
Thanks for raising questions about this issue, and offering your opinion based on all the reading you have apparently done on the subject. This is an opinion column, with Donna Lynn Rhodes, as the writer, asking Dr. Sherman questions. He in turn offers his expert opinion. We all know that experts disagree on all sorts of issues, including scientific ones. I hope that readers who are interested in this topic will read what Dr. Sherman says, and if they want, look further into it and then make up their own mind.

Citations? Almost every study found increased brain cancer risk on the same side after long-term cell phone usage, including the 2010 Interphone (doubled risk of glioma after using the phone for just 30 min/day for several years). Dubey et al. (J Comput Assist Tomogr. 34(6):2010:799-807), Hardell et al. (Neuroepidemiology 35(2):2010: 109-14), Sadetski et al. (2008), Czerninski et al. (Epidemiology 2011), and many others have peer reviewed articles about cancer and cell phones.

But it is not just about cancer. Divan et al. (J Epidemiol Community Health, 2010 online early) found increased behavioral problems in children whose mothers used cell phones, the study is beautiful.

Also Mashevich et al. (2003), DeWitt et al. (1987), Gage (1979), Wang and Lai (2000), Thomas et al. (1975), Mitchell et al. (1977), Kumlin et al. (2007), D’Andrea et al. (1986), Schrot et al. (1980), Nittby et al. (2008), Lai et al. (1989), Navakatikian and Tomashevskaya (1994), King et al., (1971), Fesenko et al. (1999), Persson et al. (1997), Belyaev et al. (2009), Kesari and Behari (2009), Dutta et al. (1989), Forgacs et al. (2006), Magras and Xenos (1997), De Iuliis et al. (2009), Schwarz et al. (2008), Diem et al. (2005) to name only very few of the peer reviewed articles showing biological effects from radiofrequency radiation emitted by cell phones.

Moreover, Eger et al. (2004) (in Germany), and Wolf and Wolf (2004) (in Israel) showed increased cancer incidence in proximity to cell towers.