3G Waves Causes Headaches, Sharpens Memory

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)!"

Brain Tumours

[Brahmastra]

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.

So, where's the study?

[terrencefw]

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?

Re:Brain Tumours

[lordpixel]

> 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)

Re:Quicker reaction times...egads

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Your unfunny joke makes no sense. Faster reaction times would reduce the number of accidents.

Different modes for different uses

[Dan East]

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

Re:Brain Tumours

[ukyoCE]

I dont know if being upside down or drinking beer will cause tumors, but if you did either for as long every day as people are subjected to wireless signals you'd fuck yourself up pretty badly.

Re:RTFA

[bo0ork]

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.

Part of the reason

[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 line is that anyone who makes a definitive stand one way or another is a fool.

Re:Great.. More junk science..

[pavon]

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)

Re:Great.. More junk science..

[rnd()]

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.

Re:Great.. More junk science..

[SeattleGameboy]

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 actually helped healing). Again, unless it is verified and replicated, it does not mean much.

Is it Junk Science? Maybe maybe not. What is junk is for media to claim that something is true based on a single unverified, non-corraborated) study.