Slashdot Log In
UK Report Suggests Dangers In Cell Phone Use
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Jan 12, 2005 08:08 AM
from the cell-phone-drivers-deserve-a-few-tumors dept.
from the cell-phone-drivers-deserve-a-few-tumors dept.
The next shot has been fired in the battle over whether cell phone use is harmful: yorktimsson writes "The Times Online is reporting (along with most UK press) that 'Professor Sir William Stewart, chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB), said that evidence of potentially harmful effects had become more persuasive over the past five years.'" In particular, the NRPB's report lists four studies suggesting negative consequences of cell phone use, from tumors to reduced cognitive function.
Related Stories
[+]
Science: Testing Cell Phone Radiation on Humans 159 comments
Palm Addict writes "News.com reports that Finland's radiation watchdog is to study the effects of mobile phones on human proteins by direct tests on people's skin. From the article: 'A pilot study, to be conducted next week, will expose a small area of skin on volunteers' arms to cell phone radiation for the duration of a long phone call, or for one hour, research professor Dariusz Leszczynski said on Friday.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UK Report Suggests Dangers In Cell Phone Use
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 275 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
One way to express the issue: (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.futurepower.net/)
A way to express the issue is this. Well-understood calculations of the physics of low-power radio waves show that the power that reaches the brain is less than the power in the same frequency range that is there due to the energy of room-temperature heat.
Anyone who can show that biological processes interact with such low-power electromagnetic waves will have found a new kind of interaction between matter and energy, and can confidently expect to win a Nobel Prize.
Since there are a lot of people who would like to win a Nobel Prize, and since such people have not shown such interaction, we can assume that the issue is not taken seriously by real scientists.
The same issue has been raised several times in regards to possible dangers sitting in front of a CRT computer monitor, and in regards to living underneath power lines.
Statistics shows that statistically improbable things happen frequently, because there are millions of possible statistically improbable possibilities. People who don't know that get worried about "cancer clusters" [nih.gov].
Not just physical (Score:4, Informative)
it won't change anything (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://linuxette.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday April 26 2005, @07:00AM)
Re:So if it affects children (Score:5, Funny)
What types of phones? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What types of phones? (Score:4, Informative)
Duh!
Only in children (Score:4, Informative)
CHILDREN under the age of eight should not use mobile phones, parents were advised last night after an authoritative report linked heavy use to ear and brain tumours and concluded that the risks had been underestimated by most scientists.
This study is applicable to children. The results may or may not be applicable to adults.
Timothy, please stop being so sensational.
If It's True... (Score:5, Interesting)
Mobile phones have become a lifestyle thing, and plenty of people I know are addicted to the ability to be reached and reach anybody else at any time. I have actually seen people get quite nervous at the prospect that their US mobile phone wasn't going to work overseas on vacation. Trying to talk them out of taking the phone to the airport for the last 20 minutes of possible usability is like talking to a hoarder during riots.
Anyway, if there's anybody out there that actually has the information on HOW mobile phones are supposedly harming people, I'd be interested in hearing it. (i.e. what about the electromagnetic radiation is harmful? Does it detach too many bogons from people's neurons?)
How do mobile phones affect people (Score:5, Informative)
The answer to 1. is provided by the SAR figure of the phone. Typically a phone will have 1 W/kg. i.e. on average it dumps one watt of power into 1 kg of nearby brain matter. This is not alot (think of holding a small torch by your ear and think about the heating effect of that) but one the other hand brains are uniquely sensitive organs. Temperature rises are probably hundredths of a degree celsius, but its hard to measure.
The answer to 2. is that no non-thermal effects have survived double blind testing.
The SAR dose from Masts is many orders of magnitude lower than that from handsets.
All the best
Michael
cell-phone-drivers-deserve-a-few-tumors.... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Wednesday September 14 2005, @10:17AM)
The question I have of course, is that why, out of all the studies done, is there only evidence of harm in four of them. There have been hundreds of studies, but only four get mentioned.
The answer of course is that all the other studies fail to give the desired results.
Show me something SUBSTANTIVE (this study is not)before you make chicken little claims. It's the responsible thing to do.
Re:In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not quite as easy as that. If you're a government scientific advisor, you need to give warnings before absolute proof is known, because if it later turns out that there really is harm, you could have prevented a catastrophe. If there is any chance of harm, it will be happening right now to kids - should we take that chance? This guy has to make that call, which is not an easy decision either way when there is so little evidence.
Smoking might be a good example of this - the arguments I'm hearing now remind me of similar arguments made 50 years ago about smoking "Oh, the studies aren't conclusive so it's all just scaremongering" etc.. However it's clear that if smoking had been banned a long time ago, fewer people would have died as a result.
If you read the article, this guy is saying that he thought the same as you 5 years ago, in that there were no conclusive studies and he saw no need for alarm. He's saying that the fact there are now 4 studies which appear to show some harm implies that he needs to make it clear to people that we could indeed have a problem, and the sensible thing to do is to restrict usage for those people most vulnerable (under-8s) until we can prove it conclusively one way or the other.
This seems to me to be a far more responsible approach than to stick your head in the sand and say "Nope, not proved 100% conclusively, can't be true.. come back when you know for certain". How responsible would it be to let a whole generation of kids grow up with an increased risk of brain tumours?
Q.
Read the article (Score:4, Interesting)
One ten-year study in Sweden suggests that heavy mobile users are more prone to non-malignant tumours in the ear and brain while a Dutch study had suggested changes in cognitive function. A German study has hinted at an increase in cancer around base stations, while a project supported by the EU had shown evidence of cell damage from fields typical of those of mobile phones.
Absolutely nothing concrete, just enough to get these researchers more funding. I read about this yesterday and really all they were saying is that since children are more subsceptible to these kinds of risks that they shouldn't give cell phones to children under eight. Well...I wouldn't give them one for other reasons, not for some off chance they might have a higher risk of cancer.
I was going to submit this story but then I read a few copies of it, realized it was meaningless and didn't. I guess the editors thought better
And this is more harmful than what? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.widescreen.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday February 15 2006, @07:44PM)
Look at computer usage. Are these people actually trying to say that occasional cell phone use puts out more radiation than that new 3.2 GHz Pentium with the 21" monitor and wireless network that daddy bought? What about a house like mine with eight computers and five monitors of 17" or more? We're in an enclosed area (the house) with all of these gadgets putting out electromagnetic radiation like crazy, but yet I need to be concerned about my 4-year-old talking to grandma on my cell phone for five minutes when we're out in the back yard? Uh, huh.
I guess that I should not be concerned about those power lines that are going over the house either since the new threat is the milliwatt radiation from the cell phone. Never mind those cell phone or microwave towers that I can see over on the mountainside, either.
Cell phone radiation. The new, over-hyped issue du jour. Can I offer anyone that miraculous oat bran to fight off that cancer while they use their cell phone?
Cell phones, this century's coffee! (Score:3, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Monday October 29, @07:20AM)
Re:Good article on radiation from cell phones (Score:5, Insightful)
>You can find this article at:
>http://www.alternativemedicine.com/ and search for cell phone.
Here's my "alternative" article:
Seven warning signs of bogus science [quackwatch.org] and Distinguishing science and pseudoscience" [quackwatch.org].
> Why, then, can't we make these technological marvels safe?
"Pseudoscience begins with a hypothesis -- usually one which is appealing emotionally, and spectacularly implausible -- and then looks only for items which appear to support it."
> Of course, according to the cell phone industry, cell phones are perfectly harmless:
"2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work."
> "I have a list of about 600 research papers from the past ten years alone, 70 percent of which show definite effects from exposure to this kind of radiation," says Lai, "but the industry continues to say that there is nothing to worry about."
"2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work."
> What about cell phones and cancer, the most publicized concern? "Studies have been conducted to determine whether there is an association between cellular telephone use and an increased risk of certain types of cancer," according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). "Although the majority of these studies have not supported any such association, scientists caution that more research needs to be done before conclusions can be drawn about the risk of cancer from cellular telephones."
OK, the only factual information here is that most studies do not support the alleged link.
> "Already there are at least 15,000 scientific reports on the subject. I am afraid the truth is that we don't want to know."
"2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work."
and a little bit of
"Pseudoscience attempts to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence (which presumably does not exist)."
> What has been shown in numerous studies, however, is that the radiation coming from cell phones does have measurable effects on brain cells that can lead to cancer, as well as neurological diseases.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
> Says Lai, "Cumulative damages in DNA may in turn affect cell functions. DNA damage that accumulates in cells over a period of time may be the cause of slow onset diseases, such as cancer."
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
> However, the researcher explains, because nerve cells do not divide, they are less likely than other cells to become cancerous, which is typified by uncontrolled replication. Instead, if a brain cell accumulates too much DNA damage, it would more likely die. "Cumulative damage in DNA in cells also has been shown during aging," notes Lai. "Particularly, cumulative DNA damage in nerve cells of the brain has been associated with neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and Parkinson's diseases."
Pseudoscience makes extraordinary claims and advances fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature.
Pseudoscientific "explanations" tend to be by scenario.
(If he can't prove cancer, he'll make up a scenario and a completely new hypothesis for the causes of these other diseases that existed before cell phones!)
> [ ... ] This study is especially significant because Hardell is a key witness in an $800 million lawsuit brought by Peter Angelos against the mobile phone industry. (Angelos is the la
On the other hand (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, what is up with the cell phone craze anyway? It's almost like people are scared to be alone with their thoughts anymore.
You all know the types... As soon as they're outside a building, their cell phone's in their hand. You see them talking in cars as they swerve in and out of lanes. You see them talking in the movie theaters, in line at the store...
It's almost like people have to validate their existence now through talking on the phone. It s sad really... And very annoying to many of us who have to put up with the selfish behavior of the average cell phone addict.
And as far as the kids go... Drudge has a link to an article on this subject, and the article is accompanied by a child talking on a cell phone with a Winnie the Pooh cover.
If studies such as these are accurate, cell phone manufacturers should have the same kind of accountability as cigarette manufacturers did, with regards to targeting kids.
In fact, I'm almost surprised we haven't seen Joe Camel brought back to hawk brightly colored, kid-oriented phones.
The Study has it all wrong (Score:3, Funny)
No no no! The study has it all wrong! Reduced cognitive function observed in cell phone users isn't the the result of the harmful effects of cell phones. It's just a reflection of the general aptitude of people who have these bits of hard plastic glued to their ears all day.