Slashdot Mirror
Mobile Phones And Danger
Trishank Karthik writes: "Have you been wondering whether those quirky, little, fashionable and convenient things are dangerous to you? Paranoid about cancer from mobile phones? Wanna know the latest findings? Cast your mobile phone aside for a while, read this, and have some coffee or tea."
Secondly, the chances are that it's not an EMR effect at all. The magnetic fields of cell phones are probably much more important than microwave emissions.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/persec.htm#cell
http://www.tecsoc.org/persec/archivepersec.htm#9
A. Keiper
The Center for the Study of Technology and Society
Washington, D.C.
After millions of dollars spent on research over the last decade no correlation has been proven yet between cellular phone usage and any damage to the health of the user. If such correlation does exist, though, one thing is sure: it's so low that it is difficult to spot against the background noise of normal health problems.
Compare this to the damage of air pollution that is very easy to spot statistically.
I am not saying that there is no risk in cellular phones, it's just a matter of proportion. We take risks every day: the risk of living in a polluted city, the risk of being hit in a car accident, the risk of being mugged etc.
I would like to have better information about the amount of risk I am taking when I use my cellular phone, but it's pretty certain that it's much lower than other risks I take every day with barely a second thought.
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
More recently, there was a nice summary of research done over at Medscape which I discussed at my website. Since I'm an oncologist and an electrical engineer, I happen to have a keen interest in the issue from both sides.
If you take a look at my comments on the matter, you may find some food for thought. Basically, this sort of radiation may well pose a threat to our health, but it may do so at such a low rate and take so long to show effects that it may not even matter.
Look at smoking: if you smoke, you have a 7000% increased risk of developing some sort of aerodigestive cancer (oral cavity, larynx, esophagus, lung, etc.) as well as a much higher risk of cervical cancer in women, increased risk of skin cancers, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, yadda yadda yadda. That data was easy to find and tease out due to the incredible rarity of these tumors in nonsmokers.
However, now you're talking about much more rare tumors, and not a very large rate of increased risk. You don't even need statistics to see that smoking has a high association with cancer, but when you look at human tumors that only affect 1 in 100,000 people, then try to see if the rate is 2 in 100,000 among those exposed (or, as is more likely, 1.1 in 100,000 among those exposed) you are in a different world. You will need amazingly large populations in order to show a statistically significant difference of even 100% higher risk. And then, even if you do, your research is subject to criticism because you aren't going to be able to do a randomized trial. All retrospective, cohort, or other nonrandomized trials can be picked apart by either the phone manufacturers or consumer interest groups (the two sides, as I see them, in this debate).
In the end, you also have to ask yourself if it matters to you. I know lots of patients who continue to smoke because they just damn like it, and forget trying to get them to quit. They'd literally rather get another cancer than give up their favorite habit. Lots of cell phone (or insert your favorite high tech device here) users will just say to hell with it and continue to use the devices. After all, I still love to ride motorcycles, even after working in an ER. ;-)
No, they use *far* less transmitting power because they only need to transmit a few hundred feet.
If direct experiments on tissue involving microwaves are difficult to perform because the microwaves interfere with the delicate measuring devices used in the experiments, why would anyone think that the same microwaves would have no effect on neurons - which are themselves delicate electrical measuring devices?
Most slashdotters are not old enough to remember this, but when I was growing up back in the 50's many shoe stores had these 'magic boxes' - about half the size of a refrigerator that a shoe salesman could use to check to see if your new shoes fit properly. The way the boxes worked was the child put his feet into an opening in them and the shoe salesman looked into a visor and he could see how the shoes fit by actually looking inside of them as though he had X-ray vision like Superman!
That was because he DID have X-ray vision; the 'magic boxes' were fluoroscopes driven by a powerful X-ray generator. Unlike a dental X-ray, the fluoroscopes did not use a brief burst of radiation which exposed a sensitive piece of film - they used a continuous beam of X-rays which were strong enough to light up a fluorescent screen with an image of the child's foot!. The poor salesman's head was in line with the X-ray emissions. When a bunch of 50's versions of Al Bundy started 'glowing in the dark' (yes I know biological tissue doesn't glow in the dark when exposed to X-rays) the machines were pulled out of service. My dad - who was a physics major in college - wouldn't let us get near those machines.
We may someday view mobile phones with the same horror that we view those shoe store 'magic boxes' today. As an electrical engineer I am quite happy to let the rest of you run the safety experiments on your own brains; that is an experiment I decline to participate in.
They could make a report saying that cell phones turn people into complete vegetables and I would doubt that the majority of people would stop using them. Hell, they probably do turn people into vegetables.
three other teams have failed to find similar evidence of increased cancer rates among mice exposed to microwave emissions
They did admit however that they taste rather like chicken.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
Home phones that use 900KHz and 2.4GHz seem to operate in the same frequency range as mobile phone so are they dangerous too?
Why?
And while the results on the activity of the brain are too new to have been subjected to the same scrutiny, the consensus is: don't panic . . . but watch this space.
Because I just can't help establishing a relation between this article that says "perhaps no" and this one:
- Phones cells are diminishing
- There are few new cellular phone features attracting people as most of them now have WAP, DATA and FAX
- People are keen on ecology provided its applications make them smarter
- New phone make people smarter
- No "low-radiation" phone have been released yet
So, I just can't help imaginating a marketer's mind: OK, if we have a doubt then there is something to sell to make peopl feel more secure.Get it ?
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.