Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Wireless Networking Hardware Technology

UK Report Suggests Dangers In Cell Phone Use 275

Posted by timothy 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Report Suggests Dangers In Cell Phone Use More

UK Report Suggests Dangers In Cell Phone Use

Comments Filter:

  • No Actually (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sir William actually stated that while there was no proof, usage should be limited as a precautionary measure. It's the same message as ever, and still total BS.
    • I would'nt call it BS, but I would say that its been over-hyped here in the UK already without *proof*, but thats the same with everything here.. I remeber when they(No idea who these wack jobs are) came out and said breast feeding was bad for your baby.. its crazy, theres thousands of these people out there looking to panic the nation to give themselves a name.

    • One way to express the issue: (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Futurepower(R) ( 558542 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @09:10AM (#11334277) Homepage

      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].
      • The filtering that takes place before these stories come to our attention is perhaps understandable but far from helpful...The Swedish study is cited in TFA as finding that heavy cell phone use doubles one's chances of getting a Acoustic Neuroma. DOUBLE! That sounds pretty damn significant whether you are trained in statistics or not. But I suppose they would lose readers if they pointed out the limitations of the study as do somewhat less sales&readership-driven sources [medicinenet.com]. An even scarrier way to exer

  • Not just physical (Score:4, Informative)

    by dsginter ( 104154 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:11AM (#11333727)
    An interesting story to find on slashdot just after I hear NPR's bit on the crackberry [npr.org].
    • Im an electrical engineer and so is my boss. Whenever his phone is about to ring, and were in a conference room, the room's speaker phone will output a burst of noise.

      I find this happens with my phone around certain devices as well. Its definitely a lot of radiation. I wouldn't even consider living anywhere near one of those towers.

      I use mine as infrequently as possible, but they are becoming ubiquitous, and one must consider second hand radiation.
      • That's not "radiation". I'm not sure of the term I'm looking for right now (perhaps induction?) but it's definitely not "radiation".

        I used to get small pops in my speakers whenever my 2-way pager would send or receive information.
      • That's not the tower doing that -- it's the phone. The base station sends a signal to the phone {actually, several base stations try to send a signal to the phone}; and the phone sends back a response, which may be picked up by several base stations. Whichever challenge-response had the clearest path {or the only one} is used for the conversation. All the base stations are linked; and if at anytime during the conversation the signal is stronger in another base station than the one currently in use, th

  • it won't change anything (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mirko ( 198274 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:11AM (#11333731) Journal
    People will keep phoning, then, they'll sue the phone manufacturers in order to force them to build more secure devices.
    • Exactly. That's the way it is with people... Everyone ignores research that something they're doing may be dangerous, until it gravely begins to affect them.

      People have got to start stepping back and start thinking that their health may be a bit more important than being slightly more efficient in business or whatever.

  • What types of phones? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Coneasfast ( 690509 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:12AM (#11333744)
    The article doesn't mention if this is for GSM or CDMA phones? As i have heard, GSM is a little less harmful. Can someone with a bit more knowledge provide some insight?
    • It's a UK report where just about everyone is on a GSM phone.

    • Re:What types of phones? (Score:4, Informative)

      by isometrick ( 817436 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:23AM (#11333812)
      The RF phase modulator is tuned at a slightly different phase angle in GSM based handsets, resulting in wavelengths that have more difficulty penetrating the epidermis.

      Duh!
    • What about bluetooth headsets or speakerphone functions? Does this problem affect all who use mobile phones, or only when the mobile must be held up to the ear? 3G videoconferencing mobile phones don't work that way when using video, nor does the use of SMS messaging and other on-screen functions. Are headsets better, or just wireless bluetooth ones?
      • The problem is the antenna. I haven't take E&M yet (I will this semester) but I believe that electromagnetic waves follow the inverse square law, so an antenna 1 inch (or 2.54 cm) from your brain is going to be about 324 times more affective upon your noggin than one that is 1 1/2 (~ .5 m) from you. Bluetooth doesn't go that far so it's probably not nearly as dangerous.
    • As i have heard, GSM is a little less harmful.
      GSM starts with the highest possible signal when a connection gets established. The phone then decreases the signal to a level, which is sufficient to maintain the connection.

      IIRC newer standards do it the other way around - the phone increases the level until the connection is maintainable. So that means less radiation for the user. However, this is just one aspect, so it doesn't prove that GSM is more harmful.

    • I don't know about that but some of my coworkers switched to Nextel phones (Which i absolutely hate nextel) and they freak me out because if a coworker is in my office and they get a call on their nextel, my monitor and speakers will actually start to flicker and make popping sounds a few seconds before their phone rings.

      So I yell at them to take their cancer boxes away from me! :)
      • My Motorola V300 does the same thing. I can tell when a call is coming in a few seconds beforfe the phone starts to ring.
      • My T-Mobile does that next to the speakers on my computer and the speakers on my alarm clock radio even while it isn't playing. It would also do it at random times during the night without it ringing. I guess it was doing some kind of update. At that hour I didn't care and just threw it on the floor to get it away from the speakers.

  • Only in children (Score:4, Informative)

    by bartyboy ( 99076 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:13AM (#11333749)
    From TFA:

    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.

    • The reasoning behind this being aimed at children is due to the comparative thinness of their skulls versus an adult's. It is thought that thicker skulls would absorb more radiation and hence provide more protection than thinner ones.
    • This study is applicable to children. The results may or may not be applicable to adults.
      No. The studies (if you'd really read TFA you'd know there were four) are not just applicable to children. However the recommendation in the report summarising the research is that children may be at particular risk and should therefore not use mobiles.

  • If It's True... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Uruk ( 4907 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:14AM (#11333757)
    If it's true and mobile phones really do fry your eggs, (and that's in doubt) I wonder if it would really change anyone's behavior.

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:38AM (#11333949)
      Non-ionising electromagnetic radiation (that's light , infra red and radio waves) is dangerous when it is neither too strongly nor too weakly absorbed by our bodies. Radio waves basically go straight through us. Light basically gets absorbed in the top fraction of mm of skin (but strong IR or light will damage you: its called 'a burn' i.e. cells are killed by heating). Microwaves used by mobile phones(about 1 GHz are potentially dangerous because they are totally absorbed by our bodies within a few cm of the surface. Thus exposing yourself to this radiation you are heating the inside of your brain. There are two key safety questions 1. How much is this heating effect (the SAR figure) and 2. Are there any other non-thermal effects of the radiation.

      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
    • I'd guess that having people distracting you at random moments will damage your ability to focus and add to the number of things you're always listening for, increasing your cognitive load. The effects of the transmission are unlikely to be significant compared to the effects of the interface.
  • "For a number of years I have been familiar with the observation that the health of people is a decreasing function of the density of cell phones they use. More recently I discovered why the use of the cell phone has such disastrous effects, and I became convinced that the cell phone statement should be abolished from all "higher level" cultures (i.e. everywhere). At that time I did not attach too much importance to this discovery; I now submit my considerations for publication because in very recent discus
  • Is that the same as "reduced ability to stay in the same f#$@'ing lane?" or reduced ability to realize a blinker might have helped" The study probably won't tell us much. The control group probably didn't include a bunch of obnoxiously loud cell-talkers, who's cognitive abilities were in question to begin with
    • It seems to me that the reduced cognitive function in heavy usage cellphone users is likely to be because they're thinking about a) the last call they took; or b) the call they're about to make. Couple that with the necessary derailment of any thought train when the rotten thing starts ringing, and you've got a portion of the population who couldn't run a maze any better than a three legged, blind rat...
    • Sounds like a good case of natural selection to me. Both the sperm count issues and the tumours are enough of a reproduction probability difference to make a difference, if given enough generations to work their magic.

      So the fucktards who just HAVE to talk on the cell phone all the time, even in a movie theatre or (loudly) on the bus, will eventually get themselves out of the gene pool.

      And conversely the introverts will eventually inherit the Earth. Who would have thought that being a nerd would eventuall

  • cell-phone-drivers-deserve-a-few-tumors.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sox2 ( 785958 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:17AM (#11333783)
    ....a bit harsh but people driving whilst using a cell are a menace. They made it illegal in the UK to do this a while back. still occasionally see people doing it though. is any law planned for canada or us where i regularly see people doing such idiotic things as using cell and reversing round a corner at the same time?!
    • I have been very split on this. While it is very irritating to deal with, there are also plenty of asshole drivers that don't have the point of distraction showing as obviously as a cellphone. I know I have faced distraction from radio, passengers, personal maladies and the like. Unless we ban all such distractions it seems to only be a drop in the bucket of getting people to be more observant on the road.
    • is any law planned for canada or us where i regularly see people doing such idiotic things as using cell and reversing round a corner at the same time?!

      In the US at least, several states and/or cities have passed laws which makes it illegal to use a cellphone while driving. Some allow for the use of handsfree headsets.

      I can't imagine there's anywhere in the US where driving in reverse around a corner WOULDN'T be illegal. Pretty much the only time it's legal to operate a car in reverse gear is when mane
  • since it's a job requirement for me to carry a cell phone.
  • suggesting negative consequences of cell phone use, from tumors to reduced cognitive function.

    There was a time when I could understand a phrase like that. 'Scuse me, my cell phone is ringing...

  • In other words (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ifwm ( 687373 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:22AM (#11333808) Journal
    There may be some small possible increase in potential risk. Maybe. In kids. Maybe.

    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)

      by Quaryon ( 93318 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @09:40AM (#11334638)
      Show me something SUBSTANTIVE (this study is not)before you make chicken little claims. It's the responsible thing to do.

      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.
      • "If you read the article"

        I did read the article. Why would you assume I didn't? I know this is slashdot, but I'm not one of the idiots who posts without thinking or reading.

        As for the rest of your post, you said nothing I hadn't already thought about. What you failed to do is address MY point, that it is irresponsible to make these claims with what is essentially NO proof.

        "How responsible would it be to let a whole generation of kids grow up with an increased risk of brain tumours?"

        Way to change the
        • I maintain it's irresponsible to announce something like this based on speculation.

          It would be irresponsible not to announce something, based on the speculation that the four studies cited are all wrong.

        • This has nothing to do with kids or brian tumors, but rather science. You have focused on the specifics of this case, which are irrelevant. The point was this scientist neeeds to have real evidence, of which there is currently little or none, before making potentially damaging claims like this.

          This scientist has reviewed the studies in question (whereas you, I am certain, have not), and concluded that there is more evidence than there was 5 years ago. Because there is the potential for a great deal of

      • However it's clear that if smoking had been banned a long time ago, fewer people would have died as a result.
        How's that? You assume that fewer people will smoke under prohibition. Obviously, if you look at the history of alcohol and drug prohibition, that is not a reasonable assumption.

        • However it's clear that if smoking had been banned a long time ago, fewer people would have died as a result.

          How's that? You assume that fewer people will smoke under prohibition. Obviously, if you look at the history of alcohol and drug prohibition, that is not a reasonable assumption.

          Several states actually did ban smoking in the years prior to alcohol prohibition. (This isn't as well known as alcohol prohibition because it wasn't done at the national level.) Just as with alcohol prohibition, the inc

        • You assume that fewer people will smoke under prohibition. Obviously, if you look at the history of alcohol and drug prohibition, that is not a reasonable assumption.

          Prohibition of a substance when the majority of the users don't see any harm is one thing. Prohibition when there is clear harm is another. In my country tabacco advertising was made illegal several years ago. There has been a resulting drop in the number of smokers. It is not at all unreasonable to conclude that a prohibition on smoking w

      • However it's clear that if smoking had been banned a long time ago, fewer people would have died as a result.

        Not true. In the long run, the exact same number would have died.

  • Read the article (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Zebbers ( 134389 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:22AM (#11333809)
    There is no real proof of anything.

    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)

    by WidescreenFreak ( 830043 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:26AM (#11333837) Homepage Journal
    I realize that children are more sensitive to certain environmental issues than adults; however, I simply cannot believe that occasional cell phone usage is really that damaging.

    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?
    • Computer monitors are linked to the same kind of effects. Thats why Sweden introduced MPR-II radiation rules for monitor displays (which have since been tightened up).

      There is also ongoing concern about police using radar guns having apparently higher rates of brain cancer.

      In terms of scale of power however a cellphone is putting out a ton more than the wireless network. The cellphone can peak at 5Watts or so the wireless network is a tiny tiny fraction of that - and the effect on you is non linear so amp
      • No that is because a CRT is actually not much different from an X-Ray tube, and without loads of lead in the glass would be spitting out a load of X-Rays. The MPR-II regulations basically set a limit on the amount of *IONIZING* radiation that a monitor can give out.

        Cell phones use microwaves and microwaves are non-ionizing radiation, and *NOBODY* in over 50 years of trying has managed to devise a reprodicable experiment that demonstrates any harmful effect of non-ionizing radiation (well unless you get eno
    • Are these people actually trying to say that occasional cell phone use puts out more radiation than that new 3.2 GHz Pentium

      Radiation intensity is inversly proportional to the square of distance from the source. If your Pentium is 30 times farther from your brain than your cell phone, your brain is getting around 1000 times smaller proportion of the Pentium's radiation than that of the cell phone.

      (I wonder if any physics is being taught at schools any more? Or would that put too much pressure on the sel
    • Next time, try more sarcasm.
  • In France they have made a law about 2 years ago to prohibit putting GSM antennas in direct line of sight of the school windows. Apparently it's more dangerous do have an antenna in front of your window then on your roof above your head. Since my grandfather died of "juvenile leukemia" at the age of 75, in 6 months and he had one of these antennas in front of his living room window about 20m away on the roof of the next building I'd tend to be VERY careful about the antennas. Maybe someone has a link tha
  • So FOUR out of HUNDREDS of studies have found "some correlation". To my mind, that proves that there is NO correlation. ------------- For those of you that don't get it, let's do a thought experiment. Let's say 100 researchers do independent studies of tumor incidence versus shoe color. Let's assume they don't have any bias either way, either intentional or not. A certain percentage are going to find some correlation, just due to the laws of statistics. Just a guess, but I suspect at least 4% will fin
  • If it turns out the cell phones are harmful to grey matter, teeth or whatever. I wonder if there will be some serious blowback in the courts. The situation I envisage would be employers being held liable for having their employees use cell phones. I have had to use one with work, although I don't have one myself. That would open a Pandora's Box since there are literally hundreds of millions of people who are at risk if they turn out to be unsafe. The fall out would be unbelievable.

    As for the premise
    • It is possible to prove cell phones dangerous. You do experiments to look for effects on biological systems.

      It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove them safe. One cannot prove a negative.

      However if Dr. Wantsagrant couldn't find more than four studies that even suggested a correlation, I'm thinking there's damn little chance that the feeble little radio wave coming out of that cell phone is going to cook a neuron, or even raise its temperature slightly.

      So if this turns out to be true I'll run off and join the Reform

  • Cell phones, this century's coffee! (Score:3, Funny)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @08:36AM (#11333941) Homepage Journal
    It's bad for you. Yes it's bad, no wait, it might be bad, no it's ok, really it is, we think, or not. Nope it really is bad. Or maybe not or it's good or it's ok in moderation. We think that it's, no it's bad. Really bad, really really bad. Oh edit that, it's probably ok, we think, yeah definitely.
    • Is that it routinely gives that "it's good, no, wait... it's bad!" impression to people. Take the studies on the benefits of drinking red wine before you go to bed, for example. Yes, it has benefits. Is alcohol still bad for you in other ways? Yes.

      Caffeine seems to have a positive effect on athletic training according to some recent research. Does that mean that the other things it does (diuretic, addiction) have suddenly gone away? No. But the way these studies are reported leads people to believe
  • This is a good and, I think, fair article on radiation from cell phones:

    You can find this article at:

    http://www.alternativemedicine.com/ and search
    for cell phone. The name of the article is "You
    Make The Call."

    -=-=-=
    Studies show that people who don't think cell phones have adverse health effects need to have their heads examined.

    -=-=-=-

    Cell phones are not just here to stay. They have evolved into ever more versatile and powerful devices and have become indispensable to our way of life. Why, then, can't

    • Re:Good article on radiation from cell phones (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @10:56AM (#11335651)
      > his is a good and, I think, fair article on radiation from cell phones:
      >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

      • Now that you have learned some of the skills needed to distinguish bullshit from non-bullshit, there are a few more steps you can take if you like. . .

        I have read quite extensively among the available literature regarding Cell Phone EM, and yes, there is some emotionally charged stuff out there which makes it easy to look away and not give the issue proper consideration.

        But there is also a lot of good research which does not raise the common warning flags your article points out.

        When it comes to the effe

      • > 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.

        Which you are guilty of too. You should have pointed out the presupposition in his quoted introduction that cell phones are not safe.

        2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.

        When a group is emotionally o

  • The truth is meaningless. Even if you shove the truth in someone's face where they shouldn't be able to ignore it, they will ignore it anyway if they want to believe something different. People will believe what they want to believe even when they know it to be untrue. Now, for some reason, people in this country want to believe that things they enjoy are bad for them. People enjoy sending text messages and talking on the phone; therefore they naturally expect there to be some sort of harmful consequenc
  • the radiation effect is always negative?

    Because that sure seems to be the case with all the wonderful doomsday pseudoscientists. First power lines, then cell fones. Riiiiiiiiight.

    Three words for those folks:

    Non
    Ionising
    Radiation

    Look it up sometime.

    p

  • On the other hand (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Mr. Cancelled ( 572486 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @09:08AM (#11334260)
    It gives all of us who have to put up with lousy, uncaring drivers, who are chatting away on their cell phones, a little pleasure in knowing that eventually there may be fewer selfish, uncaring drivers on cell phones.

    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.
    • Maybe it's because some of us like to have human contact? No, I'm not talking about the kid who would rather yack on the phone that meet up with their friends 2 blocks away.

      I spend my weekends generally away from home. Being that I don't stay specifically in one place, the cell is my only reliable means of contact. Much easier to ring up my friends and see when they're getting off of work on Friday night, or have them call me when they're off.

      Kids, on the other hand, are a different story. The tend to h
  • Not being a slashdot physician and all, I have to ask... Why aren't the sides of peoples faces melting off? Really now, it sounds lucacris, but we have cellphone emitting obviously harmful radiation, but it's not causing skin cancer or any other malady... It's causing brain cancer. We're talking about a beam with enough power to punch through the skull and hame brain tissue, but nothing else. Shouldn't my highly sensitive optic nerves be turning to jelly too? Let's talk degredation of motor functions... No?
  • Any new and useful tech attracts luddites bearing scare stories. I don't use my mobile much, but that's because I'm an uncommunicative grouch. I certainly don't fear for my life when using it. Show me the casualty list! Or else, quit harping on what-ifs.

  • The Study has it all wrong (Score:3, Funny)

    by jtwJGuevara ( 749094 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2005 @10:37AM (#11335345)
    "to reduced cognitive function"

    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.
  • People who are determined not to see will use almost any means to not see.

    There's really no need to sweat so much. If you want to turn your mind to fuzz, then you are free to do so.

    The interesting thing I notice, however, in reading the posts below, is the apparent decreasing logical and communicative abilities of the people who are defending their own decay. To be expected, I suppose, but it is really beginning to stand out more and more these days.

    There's one fellow below who wrote an annotated post
  • It's been well established in studies undertaken by entities other than electric power companies that electromagnetic radiation DOES in fact influence human energy systems. Fortunately there are easy-to-do exercises which when done regularly will fix any negative effects.

    see Donna Eden's Energy Medicine [amazon.com], which offers Donna's take on tuning up/repairing the body's energy systems.

    "separating heaven and earth" is particularly useful after using a computer/etc..

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Close