Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wireless Networking Hardware

3G Waves Causes Headaches, Sharpens Memory 277

Posted by timothy
from the like-alcohol-but-different dept.
jonknee writes "MobileTracker noted that an interesting study on 3G cellular networks has been released out of Amsterdam. The findings were that exposure to 3G waves can cause headaches and nausea (conventional cellular service doesn't have these effects). It also found that those same subjects had better memory and reaction times (conventional cellular networks have the same effect)!"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3G Waves Causes Headaches, Sharpens Memory

Comments Filter:
  • Outstanding (Score:5, Funny)

    by stanmann (602645) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:13AM (#7103151) Journal
    Next time I have to take a test, I'll carry an old motorola briefcase phone with me and Make sure it is sending and recieving.
  • alertness (Score:3, Interesting)

    by avandesande (143899) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:13AM (#7103157) Journal
    could be the bodies reaction to brain damage.
    • Re:alertness (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Threni (635302)
      Could be the heat making blood and other chemicals fire quicker. However, I'm reminded of the short story `Flowers for Algernon`...
    • by slykens (85844) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:35AM (#7103321)
      could be the bodies reaction to brain damage.

      Yes, you see, it is true the brain is like a herd of buffalo.

      You see, a herd of buffalo can only move as fast as its slowest members. When those members are killed the entire herd moves faster. So when (alcohol, 3G RF, other substances) kill off the slower brain cells the entire brain operates more efficiently!

      Speaking realistically, however, I occasionally have the opportunity to visit a building roof mounted cell site and when I do I always come away with a very dull headache. This is an 800 MHz primarily but there is some 1900 MHz there too.

      • by mrtroy (640746)
        I disagree here.

        My strategy has always been to use large quantities of alcohol to put a survival of the fittest in my brain.

        The more you drink, the better this idea gets.

        It does not help you do well in exams - dont listen!
      • In one episode of 'Cheers', Cliff is seated at the bar describing the
        Buffalo Theory to his buddy, Norm. (I don't think I've ever heard the
        concept explained any better than this....)

        "Well you see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as
        fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest
        and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection
        is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the
        whole group keeps improving by t
    • It could be. In fact, Homeopathy (IIRC) works in a way that might prove this true.

      An example of homeopathy goes like this: If you want to sleep, give yourself a small quantity of a STIMULANT. Your body will try to counteract the stimulant and return itself to equilibrium. Because the amount of stimulant is small your biological reaction to it will be more than is necessary to counteract the stimulant and the result will me a natural depressant effect.

      In the case of the G3 phone, the body may be reacti
    • by soulsteal (104635)
      I've been using a cell phone for the last few years and I don't feel dain bramaged at all.
    • "could be the bodies reaction to brain damage."

      And slashdot calls this 'interesting'?

      I'd like to posit that it's actual the brain pixies being made sleepy by the magic moonbeams that the mind control lasers produce interacting with the 3G network.

      That's gotta be worth a 'genius'.

      • Every time now when I get a cold, the night before I have a hard time sleeping.. My body is under a hightened state of awareness because it is under attack.
        Brain damage due to post-tramatic stress syndrome is also proven and well documented. This is a form of over-stimulation.
        Although I am no medical researcher I think the hypothesis that it may be bad for you is a good one.
        • "My body is under a hightened state of awareness because it is under attack."

          The viral attack is also going to raise your body temperature, which is less about overall 'awareness' than it is discomfort. Personally I sleep like a log when I'm becoming ill, although that could be coupled with a nasty case of sleep apnea (oxygen starvation coupled with interrupted deep sleep cycles leading to a deeper state of sleep).

          "Brain damage due to post-tramatic stress syndrome is also proven and well documented."

          *
  • Whoo Hoo! (Score:2, Funny)

    by CGP314 (672613)
    It also found that those same subjects had better memory and reaction times

    Screw studying for that test, I'm going to talk to my friends on my cell phone all night!
  • Brain Tumours (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Brahmastra (685988) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:15AM (#7103169)
    Here's the same story [yahoo.com] on yahoo.
    The article says that no scientific evidence exists for a link between 2G signals and brain tumours. But, what about 3G signals? If they can cause headache and nausea, I think you can reasonably expect it to have other effects such as malignant tumours. It's time to take a step back and study 3G more before massive deployment. There is no pressing need to surf porn or whatever faster on your cellphone.
    • Re:Brain Tumours (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lordpixel (22352) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:26AM (#7103263) Homepage
      > If they can cause headache and nausea,
      >I think you can reasonably expect it to have other
      >effects such as malignant tumours

      Wow. Turning myself upside down for 2 minutes can give me headaches and nausea. So can drinking beer!

      I must "reasonably expect" those to give me brain tumours too!

      Seriously though, there may or may not be a more serious problem than headaches, but there's precisely no evidence of that being presented, is there? (by the sounds of it, there's so few details no one can definatively say anything)
    • Might shielding oneself against cellphone-induced brain-tumors be a worthwhile application for a tinfoil hat?

      I'm only semi-joking. Less than that. I'm 70% serious. I can imagine people wearing special "Antiradiation hats" to make cellphone calls.
    • There is absolutely no verified (by which I mean duplicated) research linking any mobile phone radiation to non-thermal effects in human tissues. None.
      If you know of any please let me know.

      I get a bastard of a headache if I eat too many crisps or sit under flourescent lights for more than an hour or so. While the saturated fats in the crisps might give me cancer of the ass I doubt the flourescent lights are causing me permenant harm.
  • ug... (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:15AM (#7103170) Homepage Journal

    It also found that those same subjects had better memory and reaction times (conventional cellular networks have the same effect)!"

    Now if I could only remember I left my cell phone...
  • by stanmann (602645) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:16AM (#7103178) Journal
    It looks like the idea that using a cell phone is detrimental to driving performance is faulty. Since Reaction times are dramatically improved, I expect that within a few years you will be required to use a cell phone while driving.
    • by Walterk (124748) <dublet@ac m . org> on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @11:21AM (#7103684) Homepage Journal
      Well, almost right. The distration of talking to someone more than compensates for any increase in reaction time. Instead what will be mandatory will be at least 3 passengers all babbeling their heads off (preferable female, as they have superious talking performance) to other people on mobile phones, while you are free to concentrate on the road with your enhanced reaction time.
      • Instead what will be mandatory will be at least 3 passengers all babbeling their heads off (preferable female, as they have superious talking performance) to other people on mobile phones

        The Roxbury Guys anybody? They can just call each other!

  • but you're too dizzy and unstable to make it. So you call in instead, using your 3G cellular phone.

    GENIUS!

  • by terrencefw (605681) <slashdot@jameshPARISolden.net minus city> on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:17AM (#7103194) Homepage
    Ummm... the link's to a Wired article that doesn't say any more about the study than the Slashdot story does. Is the actual study available anywhere?
  • Headaches (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:18AM (#7103198)
    ...can cause headaches and nausea (conventional cellular service doesn't have these effects)

    Obviously the writer of this article has never dealt with Verizon (or many other telecomm companies).
  • Amsterdam (Score:5, Funny)

    by nitz7978 (712386) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:18AM (#7103205)
    Is yet another symptom of "3g" the munchies?
  • I, for one... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by pope1 (40057)
    Welcome our Cellular Network Enhanced Overlords.

    *ahem*

    On a serious note, were the results of this study
    pusblished in any credible medical journal?

    Cell phone *sharpens* the senses? Seems just a little crazy to me.
    • Re:I, for one... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sql*kitten (1359) * on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:37AM (#7103340)
      Cell phone *sharpens* the senses? Seems just a little crazy to me.

      Heating the brain a little is how it does it. Some of the body's subsystems work more efficiently when warmer than normal operating temperature (that's what a fever is: your body optimizing for fighting infection). Unfortunately, the optimal temperature is not the same for every subsystem, which is why the normal overall blood temperature is 37C. And there's no feedback between the subsystems: to fight infection, your immune system doesn't care if it damages your brain - that's why we cool the heads of people with fevers. So while one part of your brain may work better when a little warmer, there's no telling what the long term effects might be on other parts.
      • > Heating the brain a little is how it does [sharpen the sense].

        The (Dutch) summary [www.tno.nl] given by the researchers says:

        The TNO study has been carried out with low field strengths, comparable to those from a base station to which one can maximally be exposed to in daily situations. Computer calculations show that it is

        unlikely that the statistically significant effects, as found in this study, are of thermal origin.

        Note: "low field strengths" means "low comparable to the high strengths in the case yo

      • Heating the brain a little is how it does it.

        Yes, this is true. Why do you think every report dicussing the safety of human exposure to microwave radiation claims "no non-thermal effects"? (Although more recently, there has been evidence that microwaves can break DNA.)

        I used to do this in college during exams (a trick I learned from a biochemist friend). Wear lightweight clothes and take your shoes off, to keep your core temp down (I feel sleepy if my core temp gets too high), and a warm hat to ke
      • "Heating the brain a little is how it does it. Some of the body's subsystems work more efficiently when warmer than normal operating temperature"

        Leave it to a Slashdot reader to suggest overclocking the human brain for better performance... :)

      • Yeah, because the one milliwatt of absorbed radiation is really going to make a temperature difference in your skull against the couple hundred watts of background heat from the body.
  • Everytime I talk to them on my cellphone I get headaches too.
  • "subjects had better memory and reaction times"

    Oh great. Does that mean all those soccer moms driving around in their Ticonderoga Class SUVs chatting away on the phone will get into accidents quicker now? Yay! "I'm just out shopping. I've got a splitting headache though. Oh look, I just ran over a small car. Quick! Get out of here!" Egads...
  • by DeBaas (470886) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:27AM (#7103266) Homepage
    http://www.tno.nl/nieuws/archief/documenten/tno_fe l_report_03148mu.pdf

    TNO is the Dutch equivalent of the German TUV if I'm not mistaken. A very respected institute in the Netherlands
    • TNO is the Dutch equivalent of the German TUV if I'm not mistaken. A very respected institute in the Netherlands

      Not everyone on slashdot may know what the TNO and TUV is. To clarify it is the Dutch and German equivalent to the Swedish SIS.

      :-)

      /jeorgen

    • Short translation:
      -Two groups of people: 36 who had previously complained about GSM base stations and 36 who didn't.
      -Persons where tested with cognitive tests while being subjected to EM field of GSM/UMTS base-station. Fields where relatively low, comparable to a normal daily exposure (I guess in case you live near a base-station, not like when you stick your head in the antenna).
      -Statistical relevant relations were found between precense of field and 'experienced well-being' and 'results of mental tasks'.
      -
  • 3G vs. 2G (Score:3, Informative)

    by IAR80 (598046) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:30AM (#7103287) Homepage
    It has nothing to do with 2G over 3G as a technology in itself. It has to do with power levels and high frequencies. Meanining a 2400bps chanell at 30Ghz and an EIRP of 60dbw will mess you up pretty bad while an 11Mbps 802.11 17dbm at 2.4Mhz would not hurt you.

    • I want a megawatt 30GHz transmitter! Talk about moonbounce - hah! I could do Mars-bounce! (I know you said EIRP - 1W into Arecibo would work).

  • Why test the output of the cellular base station? Typical users aren't standing on the cell towers 60 Meters in the air, to get a better connection. This is, at best, a bad experiment. At worst, it's propaganda.

    Why not test the output from a handset? The power levels used in cell phones aren't enough to cause real problems, and thus make for a boring study, that's why.

    I recommend the researchers just stick to the study of extra strength placebos. [cornell.edu]

    --Mike--

  • by mindshadow (240798) * on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:32AM (#7103301) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like the movie Phenomenon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117333/) to me... great powers and whatnot, but then you only get laid once and die of a brain tumor... no thanks.
  • by Bvardi (620485)
    Headaches and nausea combined with better memory and reaction times.... finally I can remember just how quickly I'm throwing up!
  • The 4G waves will enhance previous brainwave mutations by at least 40%, although AMD and Intel are planning to release a similar product by Q4. :) ha ha
  • RTFA (Score:2, Funny)

    by $eRvmanIO (302817)
    Let's see...

    The study, the first of its kind, tested the impact of radiation from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network...

    That's exactly what I do everyday...I hang around cell phone towers everyday to sharpen my memory and response times!

    Riiiigghht
    • Re:RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bo0ork (698470)
      Well, in case you haven't noticed, cell phone antennas get put up on buildings, and beam right into people's bedrooms. Not intentionally, of course, but since it's not proven dangerous (to the minds of the cellphone companies), they don't give a shit anyway.
  • So it improves memory and reaction times...

    Why can't it make drivers remember to use their freakin' turn signals?

  • Why is the higher bandwidth needed for voice communication, which is when you are holding the device to the side of your head? Shouldn't the phone be smart enough to fall back on some slower connectivity for voice, and only use the higher speed network for data access? At least you aren't holding the thing next to your brain when you are surfing the web or using it for PDA / laptop connectivity, which is when the bandwidth is needed.

    Dan East
  • Fools! (Score:5, Funny)

    by kinnell (607819) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:36AM (#7103334)
    You all laughed at me and my tinfoil beanie, but who's laughing now? Eh? Eh?
  • It also found that those same subjects had better memory and reaction times (conventional cellular networks have the same effect)!"

    Thank you! now I have proof that I am not crazy because I have 6 cellphones duct-taped to my head.

    now I need to tape the article to my chest...
  • BLOAAAAAAAARRRRRGH

  • However, cognitive functions such as memory and response times were boosted by both 3G signals and the current ones, the study found.

    Well fair enough then. That might be true, but I do wonder how and why they decided to test that.

    "Nausea, headaches, loss of appetite ... check.
    Abandonment of self-awareness and general consideration in public places ... check
    Ability to memorise deck of cards ... check
    Limb mutation .. uhh ... check"
  • by teamhasnoi (554944) * <teamhasnoi&yahoo,com> on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:50AM (#7103428) Homepage Journal
    After reading this article, I have attained super-smarts by poining my Airport Extreme Cantenna directly at my frontal lobes.

    I'm getting a nice tan and I know the theories behind it! Wow - did you guys know that you can look at the sun and get the same effect? I have also discovered that my reaction time to getting modded down has been reduced to mere minutes!

    This is truly a golden age, and not some wireless corporation's self-serving sponsored study. Say that 10 times fast - I can!

    I can fly too - you guys gotta try this!!

  • It also found that those same subjects had better memory and reaction times (conventional cellular networks have the same effect)!

    So, cell phone users have better memory and reaction times?

    I would argue this has absolutely nothing to do with the phone itself, rather the fact that people WITHOUT cellphones are, well, either very old, very young, or a bit 'slower' than your normal person.

    Another tainted fact.
  • by kisrael (134664)
    I guess it doesn't count as "3G", but for one job in mid-2000 I was playing with this clip-on cellular modem for the Palm, and I found a pretty high correlation to feeling headachey and using the damn thing..can't remember the name of the product though (Hmm! Another symptom?)

    Seriously, I'm a little wary when I read that biologist pointing out that we are essentially conducting a massive study of radiation on humans consisting of the entire population of cellphone users. Maybe we should all get tin hats af
  • by brain1 (699194) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @10:55AM (#7103466)
    Great - they're at it again. There is absolutely no proven link between the minute RF field radiated by a handset and health problems. Basically there is too little energy for measurable tissue heating, the electromagnetic field is too weak to induce currents in the brain proper.

    What everyone seems to forget is the fact we live in an ocean of pretty powerful RF energy that ranges from VLF (very low frequency) up to the microwave region (SHF). Every time you turn on an appliance you are exposing yourself to magnetic and RF fields magnitudes greater than that of a cell phone handset. Drive past a broadcast station and you're exposed to a field density measured in volts per meter, not millivolts. To put it perspective, your common FM broadcast station operates between 5 and 100 kilowatts ERP (effective radiated power). A television transmitter can operate up to 2-4 Megawatts of ERP. Where is the uproar over that?

    Your common cellphone operates at a modest 3 watts (for car-mounted 800 mhz units) to a puny .1 to 100 milliwatts for the hand-held PCS units. That's barely enough to dimly light a flashlight bulb.

    Remember these facts: You live in an ocean of electromagnetic energy. A bolt of lightning radiates tremendous RF energy. Mother earth gives off VLF emissions herself. The sun bathes you in RF in the microwave region. And have you cleaned those gaskets around the door of your microwave oven? It operates at 800 to 1000 watts of power at 2.4 GHz. All it takes is a grungy gasket or a bent door and your taking on watts of very effective heating.

    I am the holder of a First Class FCC license, an Extra Class amateur license, and have worked with broadcast, land mobile, fixed service, radar, and amateur radio for decades. I have never experienced, nor have I ever encountered anyone who has experienced a health related problems for working in a high RF field. People are more likely to be injured from high voltage, burns, and mechanical means.

    Please stop trying to get funding by spreading this faux academic nonsense. Quit manipulating data to make yourselves look right and then run out and cry the sky is falling. We're all tired of this and have heard quite enough.
    • I work in the telecom industry. Last year when I started an assignment at one of the 3G-equipment manufacturers (where there is an active 3G network) I started having problems feeling "blanked out" in the afternoons. I couldn't explain it, tried different eating habits, excercising and working out. No go. When that assignment ended, the problems ended.

      I'm now on an assignment where I work with 3G again - and while I still feel the same way occassionally, it's not as bad. It _does_ happen though - and up un
    • Great - they're at it again.

      Yes, it's always easy to blame it on "them"

      There is absolutely no proven link between the minute RF field radiated by a handset and health problems.

      This study indicates otherwise. If by "link" you mean plausible mechanism, you're right, there is no defined mechanism for how RF radiation could cause these kind's of symptoms; However, a hypothesis for a mechanism on how RF can cause these symptoms is not necessary to show that their is a causal relationship. For that, al

      • to show that their is a causal relationship.

        Careful. By definition, a study like this can NOT show a causal relationship. This study shows a *correlation*, and that is all. The only way to prove causation is by determining *how* the emissions from a cell tower could affect the subjects, and then proving that that's what's happening.

        Of course, that doesn't make this study any less useful or significant. Just be careful when you start talking about causation... otherwise you're no better than the aver
    • by pavon (30274) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @12:25PM (#7104314)
      How is this junk science? A reputable institution performed a double-blind test of new equipment, and found it to have statistically meaningful effects. They acknowledged that the old cell towers were not harmfull to people, and even used them as a control (or baseline) to compare these new towers against. They acknowleged that they have no proof of perminant damage, and recomend that indepenant research be done to verify and extend their own. This sounds like a text-book example of good science to me.

      These tests were not about handsets, and they made no claims that handsets were dangerous. The only effect that this study might have is in determining the placement of towers, so people don't have to spend large amounts of time in their immediate proximity. For example, in rural area many cell towers have been placed in church steeples because they are high points, and it is less expensive and less ugly than building a tower. Now, it would be nice to know if these new base stations will have an unplesent effect on people before they are installed.

      It is really the media, not the institutions, that are to blame for the unjustified hysteria, which resulted in needing to do more work than necissary to quell peoples concerns. But I for one am glad that studies have been done to show that cell phones are safe, and am glad for new studies when new equipment comes out. Emperical data is always good, and assuming that there is no possibility that different RF techniques can have different effects than the ones we are familiar with is almost as bad unbased claims that new technology will cause cancer. (Althogh not as bad as saying that old, tested technology does)
      • I think you are bit premature in judging that this study is valid.

        As you probably already know, science works by verification and reproducibility. A single lab is making a conjecture based on "surveys". Unless the results can be replicated by an independent lab, we cannot be certain of anything.

        And I wouldn't put too much on "double-blind" claims. There are many papers that claim double-blind methods but in closer inspection the claim fails (one of the most recent example is the one about how prayer actua
    • Yeah, but people in general don't hold microwave units, fm broadcast transmitter, or television transmitter next to their ears for hours a day.

      I agree the wattage are really low (I thought 2G was around 3W, i was surprised about the .1 - 100 milliwats), and probably won't affect people at all. At the same time, I do hope that the units will evolve to need less power over time, at the very least it's good for battery life.

      Personally I don't think it has a substantial effect on people. But that doesn't stop
    • "Great - they're at it again. There is absolutely no proven link between the minute RF field radiated by a handset and health problems."

      That's really funny. I get splitting headaches from using a Nokia 3390 (2G) for more than a few minutes. The headaches got so bad that last year I went to my doctor and told him what was going on. The next thing I know, I'm scheduled for a CAT scan to see if I have any tumors and it is being paid for by an unmentioned source. While I didn't have any tumors, I stopped u
    • But don't feel bad. It's the same one the Air Force was selling to its soldiers who worked the early radar arrays, and its the first line of defense which was adopted and which has been used ever since by big business and the government. The argument being, "If the power is too low to cause damage through heating, then there is no danger."

      If only this were true!

      There is a mountain of science which has recognized the following. . .

      1. Biological nervous systems are electrochemical in nature. This is wh

      • Biological nervous systems are electrochemical in nature. This is why EEG scanners work; they are able to pick up on EM activity generated by the brain. This being the case, electromagnetic signals MUST be able to also cause an effect. --To be very blunt, speakers and microphones are interchangeable. Why I mostly agree with you in your scepticism of the safety of some heavy EM exposure - I have to call you on this one - just because some microphones work theame ways as some speakers (electic current causes
    • How does the rubber gasket on a Microwave Oven door block RF? I'm also an Extra Class ham and that'd be a new concept for me.
  • I've got a 3G phone next to the laptop I'm typing this post on, and I live about a mile from a 3G tower. And my brain works just fine! I've also got a 3G phone too, and next to the laptop I'm typing on there are no problems. I also live next to a 3G tower and my 3G phone connects to it. I'm also next to the 3G tower and my laptop is also... uh... blood... dripping from nose... help. Please help me.

  • It's interesting, but it raises a whole heap of questions that need to be answered. Given that 2G doesn't have the same effects:

    Are the differential effects due to differences in base station power output, frequencies used or (unlikely) the coding system.

  • Part of the reason (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    There are other intracellular effects to be sure, but as is the case with many different types of EMF exposure, calcium ion transport is greatly affected (increased).

    Long-term systemic effects of this activity are unkown- It could be trivial, or the situation could be an analogue to the introduction of DDT in the previous century, when the substance was considered safe and effective- Measured evidence to the contrary wasn't presented for many years, and then in the face of great controversy.

    The bottom

  • "those same subjects had better memory and reaction times"

    This is what happens, JUST BEFORE YOUR HEAD BURSTS INTO FLAME!

    They can not prove what will happen to people over many years of being exposed to constant radiation. All of this radio, TV, cell phone, etc, etc, radiation is new, on the evolutionary scale to the human being.

    We live in a sea of radiation. It's little wonder people go postal, what with their brains being cooked 24 hours a day.

    Radiation has effects on living things. No one can say
  • You see, it's actually a matter of natural selection. Those using the phones who DIDN'T have above-average reaction times, are now dead from auto accidents.
  • In 2000, the dutch government auctioned UMTS frequencies for a grand total of 2.65 bn. euros to several telcos (while they estimated to get up to 10 bn. euros). Now, 3 years later, the dutch government finds out UMTS is a health risk.

    This leaves me wondering just how much this fiasco is going to cost me as a dutch citizen, because surely the telcos will demand compensation.

    By the way, the Netherlands isn't the only country that auctioned UMTS freqs. for billions by far. If this study is repeated and pro

  • by cyberformer (257332) on Wednesday October 01, 2003 @12:36PM (#7104435)
    Base stations can be dangerous things, but the received radiation diminishes very rapidly with distance (inverse square law). That's why it's critical to know just how far away the people were from the base stations, and the news reports don't say this.

    If you hold your head directly in front of a microwave transmitter (even a 2G one), you're going to experience some bad effects. If you stand at the bottom of a hill and the transmitter is on top, you should be okay.
  • 3G Waves Causes Headaches, Sharpens Memory

    The scientific accomplishment here is not that 3G waves cause this problem, it's that when people are faced with expanded mental capacity they get headaches, like an overclocked chip getting thermal burnout.

    Scientific evidence that people aren't used to thinking!
  • So... all us people with tin-foil hats aren't so crazy afterall.

    Seriously though, I can just see the lawyers falling all over themselves to be the first through the courthouse door with a class action law-suit for the residents who live within X-mile radius of the towers. This will be bigger with the lawyers than listening to police scanners and chasing ambulances. Cell-phone companys almost always have deep pockets to pick. Cha-Ching Cha-Ching!
  • found this article [cnn.com] at CNN. it's article also brief, but has more info than the article in the /. story. anyway, here 'tis:

    AMSTERDAM (Reuters) -- Radio signals for the next generation of mobile phone services can cause headaches and nausea, according to a study conducted by three Dutch ministries.

    The study, the first of its kind, compared the impact of radiation from base stations used for the current mobile telephone network with that of base stations for new third generation (3G) networks for fast data
  • Karl Laputnik, former manager of the Verizon kiosk in the Metropolis Mall, was subjected to high doses of verizions while trying to recharge his cel phone battery in the microwave.

    As a result of this exposure, he became DOCTOR WIRELESS! Dr. Wireless, feared enemy to all that is good and right, can render event the stoutest of men INCAPACITATED with his 3G WAVES! One blast from these wave will leave his victims incapacitated with NAUSEA and HEADACHES! The effects of these attacks don't stop there. The

  • Sattelite, AM, FM, UHF, TV, Power Lines.. it's a sea of radio waves. There is no way to isolate anyone to study the effects of any frequency of radio waves. So at best these studies are unscientfic and only serve those who think they can sue the wireless companies becuase they feel sick. When there are pleny of sources.

COBOL is for morons. -- E.W. Dijkstra

Working...