Slashdot Mirror


Drowning in a Sea of Microwaves

luciensims writes "The Independent is running an article on another study of the long-term effects of mobile phones. Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?"

17 of 238 comments (clear)

  1. Control group by jhines · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the Amish come to mind, they don't seem to make much use of cell phones.

    1. Re:Control group by gl4ss · · Score: 2, Insightful

      **Even in the US, that are still large parts of the land that will NEVER be covered by a cell tower and people live there year-round.**

      never say never(population density in finland isn't much and lapland is covered 100%)..

      anyways, people in those areas still might have satellite phones, but they wouldn't make a good comparision against people who use cellphones and live in the middle of new york.

      anyways the radiation spreads so thin if you're not having it next to your head/cohones that it would probably be a totally non issue anyways.

      and seriously, any slashdotter has some bigger health issues than this.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  2. Sea of Microwaves by Kardis314 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't own a cell phone, but with all the microwaves floating around major metro areas I wonder if even those of us who shun this technology will be affected.

    --
    - It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times. Stupid Monkey!!
    1. Re:Sea of Microwaves by Kardis314 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      interesting article, but it's hard to prove a negitave. There would seem to be many studies that disagree w/him, and I doubt his assertion that *none* of them have been independantly verified, simply due to the sheer volume of studies that have been done in this area. Sounds more like he got paid off by motorola.

      --
      - It was the best of times, it was the blurst of times. Stupid Monkey!!
  3. Of course not. by Jonas+the+Bold · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?"

    No, of course not. Cities (everywhere) are full of mobile phones. The country (everywhere) is not. However, people living in the city get much different carcinogens than those living in the country, so people in the country aren't a good control group. Any place where people are packed but there aren't mobile phones is likely to be very poor, and thus, different living conditions. So no control group.

    --
    Everything seemed to be going so nice
    'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
  4. Re:maybe, maybe not by LordHugeMongus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    not that i don't believe there were no ill effects, but how would you tell if a pig is senile? they forget eachothers names or something?

  5. Re:WiFi? by SirNAOF · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sad that I never thought about that...

    I have at least 7 access points within detection distance of my room, which now makes me wonder how many waves pass through me from those alone...not to mention the rest of the world.

    --
    Jeremy Baumgartner
  6. We will have a control group by MickyJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Given how widespread mobile phone use has become, will we even have an adequate control group 50 years from now to gauge what the effects have been?

    You're kidding right? Isn't it true that 20% of people (1 billion) on this planet don't even have access to clean water, never mind mobile phones. And how long have we had clean water? More that 50 years.

    Don't panic. Your control group will be here.

    1. Re:We will have a control group by mindriot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But shouldn't a control group be otherwise exposed to the same environmental circumstances than the group of people affected by mobile phones? People in a third-world country for sure do not compare well to first-world people, and you can not judge for sure whether any differences in health are related to using or not using cell phones. You would have to find a representative control group in the first-world countries that lives in a similar environment as regular cellular phone users. And that is pretty much impossible since most people are either using cellular phones, or are surrounded by them so much that they could be affected by them as well.

    2. Re:We will have a control group by Yokaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Those people don't have access to clean water, because of technology (or the lack of more technology)

      To put it another way: A river usually contains clean water even without the help of technology.

      And putting up a infrastructure to sell cellulars even in the most remote areas has more powerful supporters than providing poor people in slums with essential neccessities like clean water.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
  7. Re:Sure we will... by david614 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Many, if not all, Third World countries are adopting cellular as a cheap alternative to a land-line infrastructure. Countries as "poor" as India, Pakistan and Iraq (to pick three easy examples) have (or had) extensive cellular infrastructures. The one in Iraq even expanded under 12 years of UN sanctions. As such, populations without cellular coverage are likely to get harder and harder to find.

    --
    ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
  8. Not your money! by geekmetal · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Mays Swicord, a scientific adviser to Motorola told New Scientist magazine that governments and industry should "stop wasting money" by looking for health damage.

    Now why would Motorola want to advice the Government and others conducting the experiment how to spend their money? hmm... I wonder!

    --
    There are two kinds of egotists: 1) Those who admit it 2) The rest of us
  9. more research by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "stop wasting money" by looking for health damage.
    I don't regard research into health issues as wasted money. I rather waste money and find nothing than know nothing about the possible effects and slowly die ignorant.
    And every (decent) research that denies any effect, simple puts to rest any concerns. It would simply say that it is save to use a mobile.
    Unwilling to do research might cause unnecessary concern and can give the impression that there is something to hide.

  10. It's a serious risk! by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    After smoking, drinking, driving, pollution, domestic violence, disease, war, invasion, drought, famine, and falling tree trunks.

    Some relativity is perhaps in order. The most extreme effects of the GSM that I've seen are (a) a lowering of concentration while driving, which has surely caused many deaths by now, and (b) the total destruction of the planned social agenda. People simply live ad-hoc these days.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  11. be careful with this study by astrashe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's important for studies to be peer reviewed and duplicated. If this is real, other scientists will say its real, and they'll duplicate the results.

    (Here's a little pop-quiz to see if you were paying attention in science class. What's wrong with this Princeton project? The answer is that no one else can duplicate their results. Peer review and duplicable results are key, even with studies coming out of big name institutions.)

    There have been quite a few studies on the effects of cell phones, and dramatic evidence that they cause problems has not jumped out at anyone.

    And people have been using cell phones for a long time. I got my first one about 10 years ago, and they were already common back then.

    There's a doctor named Dean Edell who does a radio show, and he wrote a book called "Eat, Drink, and Be Merry." In that book, he spent a lot of time talking about how bad most medical reporting is. He makes a pretty persuasive case.

    Almost everything you hear on the radio or see on tv about supplements, studies, etc., is either totally false or based on weak science.

    I don't know anything about this particular study, but I do know that a study that doesn't find anything isn't news, while the opposite story -- we're all going to have our brains turn to mush in our middle years! -- is sensational news.

    And its news to say that the evil cell industry has used its vast power to suppress studies (that's a big red flag in this story for me). Apparently the cell companies aren't just evil, they're stupid, because if they did that they'd be sued out of existence. But hey, corporations are evil, and they're lust for immediate profits knows no bounds.

    This story got hyped mostly through a link on Drudge. I love Drudge, but you have to read him with a critical eye. He says outright that he'll put questionable stuff out there and let the readers decide. And I've heard him wax paranoiac on the dangers of cloning, he's kind of whacked out on some biological and medical stories.

  12. Re:maybe, maybe not by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    reports no ill effects from use of their products. Leaders in the alcohol and tobacco industries were not available for comment. Film at eleven.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Control Group? No problem by DeafScribe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just check on deaf folks. I don't know many who use cell phones. All this talk about third world countries being a haven for control groups is absurd; their adoption rate for cellular telephony is incredible. What you will find in the deaf community is a lot of users with Blackberries and, more recently, Danger Hiptops. If you start seeing tumors sprouting among deaf folks at the waistband, you with the cell phones better get your heads checked.